Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10
review-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-08-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-08-25 | |
| Requested | 2017-08-11 | |
| Authors | Panos Kampanakis , Mio Suzuki | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-08-22 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -10
by Qin Wu
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Catherine Meadows (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Qin Wu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 11) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2017-08-22 |
review-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-08-22-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: This document provides usage guideline for The Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2. It is almost ready for publication. The readability needs to be improved a little bit. Major Issues: Section 3.1, 3rd paragraph: Confused, Which elements are required by IODEF v2 specification? Email or type and role attributes? Isn’t contact class part of IODEF v2 specification? Section 5.2 2nd paragraph said: “ Interoperability between RID agents and the standards, Use of [RFC6545] and [RFC6546], were also proven in this exercise. “ Interoperability between RID agents or Interoperability between RID agents and standards? Use of[RFC6545] and [RFC6546] is proven? Please make clear in the text. Minor Issues: Section 3.1 2nd paragraph: Consistent with the figure in section 3.1 s/ minimal Incident class needs/ minimal-style Incident class needs Section 3.2 4th paragraph: OLD TEXT: “ For use-cases where indicators need to be described, the IndicatorData class its classes will be implemented instead of the EventData class. “ NEW TEXT: “ For use-cases where indicators need to be described, the IndicatorData class will be implemented instead of the EventData class. ” Section 3.2 last paragraph: s/ relavant/relevant Section 4.1 OLD TEXT: “ As external enumerations can cary greatly, implementers SHOULD only support external enumerations that are expected to describe their specific use-cases. ” NEW TEXT: “ As external enumerations can be carried greatly, implementers SHOULD only support external enumerations that are expected to describe their specific use-cases. ” Section 4.3 OLD TEXT: “ The Indicator class can include references to other indicators, observables and more classes the contain details about the indicator. ” NEW TEXT: “ The Indicator class can include references to other indicators, observables and more classes the contain details about the indicator. ” Section 5.1 OLD TEXT: “ Section 7 also includes practical IODEF use guidelines. ” NEW TEXT: “ “ Section 7 also includes practical IODEF usage guidelines. ” ” Section 5.2 1st paragraph: s/ compteting /competing Nits: Please run nit-check to fix 3 errors and 3 warnings. -Qin