[mile] inconsistencies between the body text and schema in RFC7970

"Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Tue, 25 December 2018 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
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 2B054130DD1 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 03:35:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9zukYtRRDDi5 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 03:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.nict.go.jp (ns1.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0235130DC6 for <mile@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 03:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (gw1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.250]) by ns1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id wBPBZ6eb048838 for <mile@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:35:06 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (mail2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.15]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id wBPBZ53o048835 for <mile@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:35:06 +0900 (JST)
Received: from LAPTOP9DLCDU5S (unknown [133.243.29.253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server2) with ESMTPSA id DE7F814CFB for <mile@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:35:05 +0900 (JST)
From: Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
To: 'MILE IETF' <mile@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:35:06 +0900
Message-ID: <000001d49c45$e2400570$a6c01050$@nict.go.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01D49C91.52295B20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdScRZAAW5/8WdCuTs69Dh41x0Zx7Q==
Content-Language: ja
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.1 at zenith1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/zBH0Ploj7Pi79eXz-YFrmQzStns>
Subject: [mile] inconsistencies between the body text and schema in RFC7970
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 11:35:09 -0000

Hi Roman and all,

 

We found several inconsistencies between schema and the main body text.

These are a bit of problem for defining the CBOR/JSON IODEF data
representations.

Could you clarify which one is correct?

 

1. 

In Section 3.18.3 (Counter class), the value of the "type" could be either
count, peak, average, or ext-value. However, the schema defined the "type"
to be either counter, rate, average, or ext-value.

 

2.

In Section 3.23.1 (Key class), the names of the elements were defined to be
KeyName and KeyValue in the body text, but the schema defined the class to
have KeyName and Value (instead of KeyValue).

 

3.

In Section 3.20 (Service class), the ProtoType element comes after ProtoCode
element, but the schema says that ProtoCode element comes after ProtoType
element.

 

I appreciate your replies.

 

Thank you, and kind regards,

Take