IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mile] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 24 June 2016 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B987E12D756; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6E_vubWg8P6; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shetland.sei.cmu.edu (shetland.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3EAF12D74B; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by shetland.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u5OL4nvq007710; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:04:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1466802289; bh=MO+0DdPbXuGLN1TOtaTMaYZg9d1pVL6+Xm9sYdxS51U=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender: Reply-To; b=fYTMwUEV4u4/jx5PSLF2acYTQ52LGZFjR4Mg4iHO1yWnguxUA6WWtynhwD0QU5V8B /hEOMPLRAWQKSFj7nfhitJ7224FgMrmB36QhR8K+sk6M8Fp5/lf1Bx8J+vLJ7b/33K LpNGVl0XXQNXdx33vFXAig8x5duRb69IqWcdPPmQ=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u5OL4iEV030572; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:04:44 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:04:44 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRvGGk6V8kvuhBE0Wq6WhbUhyk4p/VbZAwgAEqngCAG/xNQIAFNCEAgAFF7bCAAFU1AP//2ycA
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:04:43 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD976BB9D@marathon>
References: <20160601234150.16188.9970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD974F737@marathon> <5750568A.7020302@cs.tcd.ie> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD97669C8@marathon> <576C2DDC.8000606@cs.tcd.ie> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD976BA35@marathon> <576D86BE.8010301@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <576D86BE.8010301@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/nczy4mVTlcQ-o6G02xdYd8X4gRA>
Cc: "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis@ietf.org>, "mile-chairs@ietf.org" <mile-chairs@ietf.org>, "mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mile] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mile/>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:04:55 -0000

Hi Stephen!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:15 PM
> To: Roman D. Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: mile@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis@ietf.org;
> takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp; mile-chairs@ietf.org; mile-
> chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 24/06/16 19:22, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
> >> > TBH, I wonder if the right thing here is to say that documents
> >> > with ambiguous confidence elements MUST be treated as if the
> >> > confidence element were omitted.
> >> >
> >> > Would that work?
> > Definitely.  Would this last sentence address your concern:
> >
> > "... While the sender of the
> > document may explicitly convey confidence in the data in a granular
> > way using the Confidence class, the recipient is free to ignore or
> > refine this information to make its own assessment.
> > [start new text]
> > Ambiguous Confidence elements in a document MUST be ignored by the
> recipient.
> > "
> >
> > It's a restatement of your suggestion to match the existing style of the text.
> 
> That'd work for me. I'd word it more like:
> 
> "Ambiguous Confidence elements (where it is unclear to which of a set
> of other elements the Confidence element relates) in a document MUST be
> ignored by the recipient."

-25 was just posted.  It includes the exact text above.

Thanks for your help in improving the draft.

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email