The Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)
draft-ietf-idwg-idmef-xml-16
Discuss
Yes
(Sam Hartman)
(Steven Bellovin)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jeffrey Schiller)
(Patrik Fältström)
(Russ Housley)
(Thomas Narten)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
Randy Bush Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2005-08-18)
Unknown
Dicuss comment transferred from old ballot: needs to separate into at least two docs, the xml and transport model and the particular application xml-dir review comment 1) There is too much description and teaching about XML and UML. The document should merely reference the XML and UML standards and explain the restrictions and/or extensions to those specs in the definition of IDMEF. 2) Section 3.3.4 mentions XML Schema and how they would one day use it. Well, it has been out for awhile, so why aren't they? If they switched from DTD's to XML Schema, they could probably get rid of half of the data type sections (3.4.1 to 3.4.6) and their entire need for UML.
Scott Bradner Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2005-08-18)
Unknown
Discuss transferred from old ballot:
note:
I would have thought that there should eb an IANA considerations
section that at least points to sec 5 on how extensions
can get made but also, I would have thought that sec 5 would
have included what IETF proocesses (see RFC 2434) should
be used to extend teh protocol
I'm sensitive to this because we are getting a pile of
requests to extend IETF protools (MPLS, RSVP etc) of
late and we did not have any -must be extened within the
ietf only- IANA mesage so we are being asked to OK
some messy extensions - it woudl be good to cut this off at the
pass and include such restrictions in new docs
Ned Freed Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2005-08-18)
Unknown
Comment transferred from old ballot: >To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> > discuss > ... > 2) Section 3.3.4 mentions XML Schema and how they would one day use it. > Well, it has been out for awhile, so why aren't they? If they > switched from DTD's to XML Schema, they could probably get rid of half > of the data type sections (3.4.1 to 3.4.6) and their entire need for UML. This isssue is discussed in section 4.7 of draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-07.txt, recently approved as a BCP. This section makes it clear that either a DTD or a Schema based approach is permissible; neither one is inherently better than the other: The choice of tool depends on the needs for extensibility or for a formal language and mechanism for constraining permissible values and validating adherence to the constraints. I read this as saying that unless a case can be made that these needs aren't met by the chosen mechanism we should not be insisting they make a different choice.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-02)
Unknown
It would be helpful to have boilerplate about this not being a standard.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was No Record, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-02)
Unknown
I'm probably a No Objection on this to avoid delay, but I note that there is nothing to tell the reader how its success or failure as an Experimental spec will be evaluated. Experimental does not mean de facto standard!
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jeffrey Schiller Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Patrik Fältström Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-02-27)
Unknown
If the XML Schema were normative I'd enter this as a discuss. Since it's not, though, a comment will suffice. XML namespaces minted in the IETF should be registered with IANA as described in RFC 3688. This document uses an IANA URL to identify the namespace. There's also some redundancy in the schema. I see an empty derivation by restriction, for example: <xsd:simpleType name="mime-type"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> Any place this type is referenced, xsd:string can be used instead since there's no actual restriction included in this definition. What they've done with the above is create an alias for the Schema "string" type, which can make things confusing to understand.
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown