Re: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft

Hi Take,

> Thank you for your kind comment.
> I also think the work of the reference format draft is important, and it
> could be incorporated in the RFC5070-bis.

That makes sense - I agree that it will be cleaner to pick the reference format
up via use of and/or incorporation of the reference format into 5070-bis, and I
understand your reluctance to complicate the structure of the SCI draft in
advance of that better solution:

> In case of the SCI draft, it also has "ext-SpecID" field.
> Though we could combine "ext-SpecID" and "AttackPatternID" as well, I am not
> sure the need for that. It could just increase the complexity in case of the
> SCI draft.
> (We will end up with mixing "SpecID:AttackPatternID" and
> "ext-SpecID:AttackPatternID" in a same field, and SpecID values are chosen
> from the list in the IANA table while ext-SpecID values are not.)

Thank you for considering the comment,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takeshi Takahashi [mailto:takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:57 PM
> To: Black, David; mile@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Thank you for your kind comment.
> I also think the work of the reference format draft is important, and it
> could be incorporated in the RFC5070-bis.
> 
> Regarding the connection to the SCI draft, I guess you are meaning that the
> "SpecID" and "AttackPatternID(or similar IDs such as VulnerabilityID)"
> attributes should be combined into one attribute and be represented
> following the reference format draft.
> I am a bit reluctant to do so.
> In case of the SCI draft, it also has "ext-SpecID" field.
> Though we could combine "ext-SpecID" and "AttackPatternID" as well, I am not
> sure the need for that. It could just increase the complexity in case of the
> SCI draft.
> (We will end up with mixing "SpecID:AttackPatternID" and
> "ext-SpecID:AttackPatternID" in a same field, and SpecID values are chosen
> from the list in the IANA table while ext-SpecID values are not.)
> Moreover, since we anyway use XML, I am not sure why we need to combine two
> fields into one by using colon (in case of the SCI draft): we could simply
> have two separated attributes within the SCI draft.
> 
> On the other hand, the SCI draft and the Reference Format draft can cope
> with each other nicely once the RFC5070-bis incorporates the Reference
> Format draft, since the SCI draft uses Reference classes (that should be the
> new Reference class incorporating the Reference Format draft by the time the
> RFC5070-bis is published).
> 
> Anyway, thank you for your kind clarification question.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Take
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mile-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Black, David
> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:23 PM
> > To: mile@ietf.org
> > Subject: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft
> >
> > Should the SCI draft be requiring that references to SCI documents use the
> > format in the IODEF Enumeration Reference Format draft
> > (draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-00)?
> >
> > This seems like a good place to start using that reference format.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> > david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mile mailing list
> > mile@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile
> 