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

["Roman D. Danyliw" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alexey!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman D. Danyliw [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 2:09 PM
> To: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>; Kathleen Moriarty
> <[e-mail]>
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 1:00 PM
> > To: Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Roman D.
> > Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070- [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22:
> > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Kathleen/Roman,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016, at 08:53 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > Do the recent updates address your concerns?
> >
> > The latest version is an improvement.
> >
> > One final point I am uncomfortable with:
> >
> > 4.3.  Validation
> >
> >    IODEF documents MUST be well-formed XML.  It is RECOMMENDED that
> >    recipients validate the document against the schema described in
> >    Section 8.  However, mere conformance to this schema is not
> >    sufficient for a semantically valid IODEF document.  The text of
> >    Section 3 describes further formatting and constraints; some that
> >    cannot be conveniently encoded in the schema.  These MUST also be
> >    considered by an IODEF implementation.  Furthermore, the enumerated
> >    values present in this document are a static list that will be
> >    incomplete over time as select attributes can be extended by a
> >    corresponding IANA registry per Section 10.2.  Therefore, IODEF
> >    implementations MUST periodically update their schema and MAY need
> to
> >    update their parsing algorithms to incorporate newly registered
> >    values.
> >
> > How realistic is this to require all implementations to update their
> > schema? Is
> > IODEFv2 intended to be used by IoT devices that might not have much
> > battery/CPU power to do this?
> > (I appreciate that this is different from my original DISCUSS point,
> > but this is related to a change that was caused by my DISCUSS. So I
> > would like to discuss this quickly.)
> 
> Makes sense.  What about updating the text to read: "IODEF implementation
> SHOULD periodically ... ".

The s/MUST/SHOULD/ was made in -25.

Roman