Hi Tom, > On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems like you need a reference to 5070-bis rather than 5070, then.
Yes, that’s probably correct. > > Tom > > On 09/12/2014 4:40 PM, Black, David wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Thanks for reviewing this draft. >> >>> Major issues: I am having a hard time reconciling the extension >>> procedures specified in Section 5 of RFC 5070 [IODEF] with the content >>> of the draft. >> >> No surprise there, as those extension procedures are not being used, >> although one would have to be a mile WG participant to understand why ... >> >>> As I see it, you have added an attribute to ReferenceName, >>> and this is actually not covered by RFC 5070. As I understand it, 5.1 >>> covers ENUMs and 5.2 covers new classes. My conclusion is that this >>> document should update RFC 5070, describing how to add new attributes -- >>> or is that the equivalent of adding a new class? Even if it were a >>> simple matter of adding ENUMs, where are the ext- declarations called >>> for by Section 5.1 of RFC 5070? >> >> The mile WG is in the process of replacing RFC 5070 with a new IODEF v2 >> including a new XML schema that will use the enum ref format schema in >> the draft that you reviewed. Here's the 5070bis draft: >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis/ >> >> This topic was discussed in the mile WG meeting in Honolulu, and the >> course of action that resulted is to not update RFC 5070 or provide >> extension definitions for it because RFC 5070 will be replaced soon. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:25 PM >>> To: Gen Art; [email protected] >>> Subject: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>> you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 >>> Reviewer: Tom Taylor >>> Review Date: 9/12/2014 >>> IETF LC End Date: 16/12/2014 >>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >>> >>> Summary: Basically a well-written document with tiny nits. The "major >>> issue" may simply be a matter of my inexperience with XML schemas. >>> >>> Major issues: I am having a hard time reconciling the extension >>> procedures specified in Section 5 of RFC 5070 [IODEF] with the content >>> of the draft. As I see it, you have added an attribute to ReferenceName, >>> and this is actually not covered by RFC 5070. As I understand it, 5.1 >>> covers ENUMs and 5.2 covers new classes. My conclusion is that this >>> document should update RFC 5070, describing how to add new attributes -- >>> or is that the equivalent of adding a new class? Even if it were a >>> simple matter of adding ENUMs, where are the ext- declarations called >>> for by Section 5.1 of RFC 5070? >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> Tiny nit, third paragraph of Security Considerations: >>> s/third-party/third party/ (three times) >>> Former is an adjective, but contecxt requires a noun. >>> >>> The last sentence of the IANA Considerations section has a forward >>> reference to Section 6 which should instead be Section 5. >> >> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
