Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-04

["Haleplidis Evangelos" <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Tom,

Thank you for the review.

Please see inline.

With regards,
Evangelos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Yu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:01 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-forces-model- 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-04
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> Summary: ready with nits
> 
> I find the Security Considerations section of this document to be 
> reasonable.  I agree that there is negligible security impact from the 
> changes described in this document.
> 
> The capitalization is inconsistent for "DefaultValue" (in
> typeDeclarationGroup) vs "defaultValue" (most other places).  I think 
> this poses no technical problem as written, but it could lead to 
> surprises if human-written XML is validated against the schema 
> (assuming I am correct in recalling that XML is case-sensitive).
> 

[ΕΗ] Actually that specific "DefaultValue" was redundant. I have verified
that and removed from the schema. Thank you for catching this. Now all
defaultValue are consistent.

> Editorial:
> 
> I found it difficult to identify the before/after differences in the 
> schema fragments, especially when the quoted fragments are large.
> Perhaps someone more familiar with XML schemas would not have this 
> difficulty.  I noticed that in some but not all of the schema 
> fragments, the "<!-- Extension -->" and <"!-- /Extension -->" comment 
> annotations are helpfully used to mark portions of the schema that 
> have changed.
> Notably, in Figures 2 and 4, these annotations are missing.  I would 
> prefer that changes be shown in a "unified diff" style, but I know 
> that is not idiomatic in the RFC format.
> 

[ΕΗ] Fixed figures 2 and 4.

> It would also be a good idea to describe the "<!-- Extension -->"
> annotations in the text, to orient the reader to their use in the 
> schema fragments.
> 

[ΕΗ] Done.

> In Figure 4, the indentation seems incorrect and confusing.
> 

[ΕΗ] Fixed, thank you.

> In Figure 5, I found the inclusion of extension annotations in the 
> "original" excerpt from the schema to be confusing.  The preceding 
> paragraph does provide an explanation, but I wonder if it could be 
> more clear.  Figure 1 lacks this issue.
> 

[ΕΗ] Ok. To avoid confusion, I removed the extension from the original
excerpt and changed the text to specify that the new excerpt includes both
extensions.

> In case future documents make further revisions to the schema, perhaps 
> the extension comment annotations should include the RFC number of 
> this document so that a reader may distinguish which changes took 
> place in which documents.

[ΕΗ] That's a very nice suggestion. I will add that. I will add: Extension
RFC XXXX and notify the RFC editor to change when appropriate.