Subject: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:23:21 -0400

Should the SCI draft be requiring that references to SCI documents
use the format in the IODEF Enumeration Reference Format draft
(draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-00)?

This seems like a good place to start using that reference format.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:56:47 +0900

Hi David,

Thank you for your kind comment.
I also think the work of the reference format draft is important, and it
could be incorporated in the RFC5070-bis.

Regarding the connection to the SCI draft, I guess you are meaning that the
"SpecID" and "AttackPatternID(or similar IDs such as VulnerabilityID)"
attributes should be combined into one attribute and be represented
following the reference format draft.
I am a bit reluctant to do so.
In case of the SCI draft, it also has "ext-SpecID" field.
Though we could combine "ext-SpecID" and "AttackPatternID" as well, I am not
sure the need for that. It could just increase the complexity in case of the
SCI draft.
(We will end up with mixing "SpecID:AttackPatternID" and
"ext-SpecID:AttackPatternID" in a same field, and SpecID values are chosen
from the list in the IANA table while ext-SpecID values are not.)
Moreover, since we anyway use XML, I am not sure why we need to combine two
fields into one by using colon (in case of the SCI draft): we could simply
have two separated attributes within the SCI draft.

On the other hand, the SCI draft and the Reference Format draft can cope
with each other nicely once the RFC5070-bis incorporates the Reference
Format draft, since the SCI draft uses Reference classes (that should be the
new Reference class incorporating the Reference Format draft by the time the
RFC5070-bis is published).

Anyway, thank you for your kind clarification question.

Kind regards,
Take

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Black, David
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft
> 
> Should the SCI draft be requiring that references to SCI documents use the
> format in the IODEF Enumeration Reference Format draft
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:15:57 -0400

Hi Take,

> could be incorporated in the RFC5070-bis.

That makes sense - I agree that it will be cleaner to pick the reference format
up via use of and/or incorporation of the reference format into 5070-bis, and I
understand your reluctance to complicate the structure of the SCI draft in

> from the list in the IANA table while ext-SpecID values are not.)

Thank you for considering the comment,
--David

> From: Takeshi Takahashi [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:57 PM
> To: Black, David; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [mile] Late WG LC comment on SCI draft
> 
> Hi David,
>