From nobody Mon Feb 2 08:03:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331381A1B5A for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Weh_jiqgfe4m; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9D51A1B25; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150202150848.892.47039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:08:48 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:03:31 -0800 Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:08:54 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Mon Feb 2 08:03:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB7D1A1B5A; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBOf1bM445xt; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790191A1B4E; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:08:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150202150856.10637.62311.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:08:56 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:03:31 -0800 Subject: [drinks] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:08:59 -0000 Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-02-05 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Mon Feb 2 08:03:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3E21A1B13 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:10:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JYo8qfFxspfn; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:09:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6611A1AF9; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:09:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150202150958.10637.48.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:09:58 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:03:31 -0800 Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:10:01 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ From nobody Mon Feb 2 08:03:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298FB1A1B25; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:10:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HcjFx1bvv8-4; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:10:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0EB41A19F8; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:10:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150202151052.892.92495.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:10:52 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:03:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:10:54 -0000 Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-02-05 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ From nobody Tue Feb 3 08:25:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BF51A1A95; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U2lbsjiVOed9; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A4B1A1A16; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jari Arkko" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150203162454.1920.54.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:24:54 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: peter@akayla.com, drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:24:58 -0000 Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be interested in hearing an answer at least with regards to the following items raised in Peter Yee's Gen-ART review. In both cases I too was left wondering what the text actually meant. Section 7.2: Is the "Delete" operation meant to be atomic? Should that be specified in that section? Section 9.7: this section discusses how the "transport protocol" provides connection protection services and then says that therefore a man-in-the-middle attack is possible. If that's the case, then the "transport protocol" is not (adequately) providing connection protection. And without connection protection, a man-in-the-middle attack would of course be possible, so saying that because there is connection protection, a man-in-the-middle attack is therefore possible seems misleading. From nobody Tue Feb 3 08:27:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9101A1AE0; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:27:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2VI8XJodmOD4; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B5A1A1AA4; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:27:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jari Arkko" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150203162712.24637.50262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:27:12 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: roni Even , drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:27:17 -0000 Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roni Even's Gen-ART review raised some questions that should be answered, I think. From nobody Tue Feb 3 23:56:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D8B1A6FBB for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:56:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.842 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.842 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7upMdI5_cWzs for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:56:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8F7E1A6F5D for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.50 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:56:11 +0100 Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:56:05 +0100 From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: "drafts-eval@iana.org" Thread-Topic: [IANA #806866] Evaluation: to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AQHQQAX/r8FfIJeI20KRwmMAjpqIEpzgH1cA Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:56:04 +0000 Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743484@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> References: <20150202150942.30670.88202.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.163] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Archived-At: Cc: "drinks@ietf.org" , "drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [drinks] [IANA #806866] Evaluation: to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:56:20 -0000 SGVsbG8gUGVhcmwsDQoNCj4gSUFOQSBOT1QgT0suICBDb21tZW50cyBpbiB0cmFja2VyDQo+IElB TkEgQWN0aW9ucyAtIFlFUw0KPiANCj4gUXVlc3Rpb24sIHBvc3RlZCAgaW4gdGhlIExhc3QgQ2Fs bCBjb21tZW50ICh0aWNrZXQgODAyNzEwKSBhbmQgdGhlIHRyYWNrZXIsDQo+IGFib3V0IElBTkEg YWN0aW9uICMzIGZvciBzZWN0aW9uIDExLjIgb2YgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBoYXMgbm90IGJlZW4gYW5z d2VyZWQuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGFuayB5b3UsDQoNCkkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGVyZSB3YXMgYSBxdWVz dGlvbiBhYm91dCB0aGUgZHJhZnQsIGhvd2V2ZXIsIGkgYWxzbyB1bmRlcnN0b29kIHRoYXQgbWVz c2FnZSBvZiB5b3VyczoNCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL2Ry aW5rcy9jdXJyZW50L21zZzAxMzEwLmh0bWwNCg0KV2hlcmUgeW91IHNhaWQgIlVwb24gcmV2aWV3 LCB0aGUgZXhwZXJ0cyBoYXZlIGFwcHJvdmVkIHRoaXMgb25lLiIgYW5kIHRoZXJlZm9yZSBpIGhh ZCB0aGUgaW1wcmVzc2lvbiB0aGUgaXNzdWUgd2FzIHNvbHZlZCBieSB0aGF0IHN1YnNlcXVlbnQg cmV2aWV3Lg0KDQpBbnl3YXlzLCBpIHdpbGwgZ28gYmFjayB0byB5b3VyIG9yaWdpbmFsIG1haWws IGFuZCBhbnN3ZXIgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHJpZ2h0IGF3YXkuDQoNCnRoYW5rcywNCkFsZXgNCg0K From nobody Wed Feb 4 00:06:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB3C1A6FF3 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:06:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghZlPlPyHgut for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:06:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E911A6FE9 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.50 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:06:24 +0100 Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:06:21 +0100 From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: "drafts-lastcall@iana.org" Thread-Topic: [IANA #802710] Last Call: (Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF)) to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AQHQNQWBiwd3WazDOEm7yLQsJLPmG5zgNy+Q Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075467434CB@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> References: <20150108140910.22746.6448.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.163] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Archived-At: Cc: "drinks@ietf.org" , "drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [drinks] [IANA #802710] Last Call: (Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:06:33 -0000 DQoNCkRlYXIgSUFOQS1UZWFtLA0KDQo+IE9uIGFwcHJvdmFsIG9mIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQsIElB TkEgdW5kZXJzdGFuZHMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdGhyZWUNCj4gYWN0aW9ucyB3aGljaCBJQU5B IG11c3QgY29tcGxldGUuDQoNClRoaXMgaXMgY29ycmVjdC4NCiANCj4gRmlyc3QsIGluIHRoZSBu cyByZWdpc3RyeSBvZiB0aGUgSUVURiBYTUwgcmVnaXN0cnkgbG9jYXRlZCBhdDoNCj4gDQo+IGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWFuYS5vcmcvYXNzaWdubWVudHMveG1sLXJlZ2lzdHJ5Lw0KPiANCj4gYSBuZXcg bmFtZXNwYWNlIHdpbGwgYmUgcmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBhcyBmb2xsb3dzOg0KPiANCj4gSUQ6IHNwcGY6 YmFzZToxDQo+IFVSSTogdXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnhtbDpuczpzcHBmOmJhc2U6MQ0KPiBGaWxl bmFtZTogWyBUQkQtYXQtcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIF0NCj4gUmVmZXJlbmNlOiBbIFJGQy10by1iZSBd DQoNCkNvcnJlY3QuDQoNCj4gQXMgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCByZXF1ZXN0cyByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24g aW4gYSBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIFJlcXVpcmVkIHJlZ2lzdHJ5LA0KPiB3ZSB3aWxsIGluaXRpYXRl IHRoZSByZXF1aXJlZCBFeHBlcnQgUmV2aWV3IHZpYSBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIHJlcXVlc3QuIEV4cGVy dA0KPiByZXZpZXcgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNvbXBsZXRlZCBiZWZvcmUgeW91ciBkb2N1bWVu dCBjYW4gYmUgYXBwcm92ZWQNCj4gZm9yIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIGFzIGFuIFJGQy4NCg0KSSBkbyB1 bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoYXQgRXhwZXJ0IGFwcHJvdmFsIHdhcyBncmFudGVkIGZvciB0aGlzIG5hbWVz cGFjZSwgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIElBTkEgVGlja2V0ICM4MDQ4MDAgKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9kcmlua3MvY3VycmVudC9tc2cwMTMxMC5odG1sKQ0KIA0KPiBT ZWNvbmQsIGluIHRoZSBzY2hlbWEgcmVnaXN0cnkgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYgWE1MIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGxv Y2F0ZWQgYXQ6DQo+IA0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlhbmEub3JnL2Fzc2lnbm1lbnRzL3htbC1yZWdp c3RyeS8NCj4gDQo+IGEgbmV3IHNjaGVtYSB3aWxsIGJlIHJlZ2lzdGVyZWQgYXMgZm9sbG93czoN Cj4gDQo+IElEOiBzcHBmOjENCj4gVVJJOiB1cm46aWV0ZjpwYXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNwcGY6MQ0K PiBGaWxlbmFtZTogWyBUQkQtYXQtcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIF0NCj4gUmVmZXJlbmNlOiBbIFJGQy10 by1iZSBdDQoNCkNvcnJlY3QuDQoNCj4gQXMgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCByZXF1ZXN0cyByZWdpc3Ry YXRpb24gaW4gYSBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIFJlcXVpcmVkIHJlZ2lzdHJ5LA0KPiB3ZSB3aWxsIGlu aXRpYXRlIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlZCBFeHBlcnQgUmV2aWV3IHZpYSBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIHJlcXVlc3Qu IEV4cGVydA0KPiByZXZpZXcgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNvbXBsZXRlZCBiZWZvcmUgeW91ciBk b2N1bWVudCBjYW4gYmUgYXBwcm92ZWQNCj4gZm9yIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIGFzIGFuIFJGQy4NCg0K SSBkbyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoZSBleHBlcnQgYXBwcm92YWwgcmVmZXJyZWQgYWJvdmUgZG9lcyBh bHNvIGNvdmVyIHRoYXQgcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uLg0KIA0KPiBUaGlyZCwgYSBuZXcgcmVnaXN0cnkg aXMgdG8gYmUgY3JlYXRlZCBjYWxsZWQgdGhlIFNQUEYgT3JnSWRUeXBlIE5hbWVzcGFjZXMiDQo+ IHJlZ2lzdHJ5LiBBc3NpZ25tZW50cyBjb25zaXN0IG9mIHRoZSBPcmdJZFR5cGUgbmFtZXNwYWNl IHN0cmluZyBhbmQgYQ0KPiByZWZlcmVuY2UgZm9yIHRoYXQgc3RyaW5nLiBUaGUgbmV3IHJlZ2lz dHJ5IGlzIHRvIGJlIG1haW50YWluZWQgdmlhICJSRkMNCj4gUmVxdWlyZWQiIGFzIGRlZmluZWQg aW4gUkZDIDUyMjYuDQoNClRoaXMgaXMgY29ycmVjdC4NCiANCj4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGluaXRpYWwg cmVnaXN0cmF0aW9ucyBpbiB0aGUgbmV3IHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGFzIGZvbGxvd3M6DQo+IA0KPiBPcmdJ ZFR5cGUgbmFtZXNwYWNlIHN0cmluZyBOYW1lc3BhY2UgUmVmZXJlbmNlDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tIC0tLS0tLS0tLSAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSBJQU5BIEVudGVycHJpc2Ug TnVtYmVycyBpYW5hLWVuIFsNCj4gUkZDLXRvLWJlIF0NCj4gDQo+IElBTkEgUVVFU1RJT04gLT4g V2hlcmUgc2hvdWxkIHRoaXMgbmV3IHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGJlIGxvY2F0ZWQ/IElzIGl0IGEgbsOpdw0K PiByZWdpc3RyeSBvbiB0aGUgSUFOQSBNYXRyaXggKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWFuYS5vcmcvcHJvdG9j b2xzKSBvciBpcyBpdCBhDQo+IHN1YnJlZ2lzdHJ5IG9mIGFuIGV4aXN0aW5nIHJlZ2lzdHJ5LCBs aXN0ZWQgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pYW5hLm9yZy9wcm90b2NvbHM/IElmDQo+IGl0IGlzIGEgc3Vi cmVnaXN0cnkgb2YgYW4gZXhpc3RpbmcgcmVnaXN0cnksIGluIHdoaWNoIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IHdpbGwg aXQgYmUgY29udGFpbmVkPw0KDQpDbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uOiBUaGlzIGlzIGEgbmV3IHJlZ2lzdHJ5 IG9uIHRoZSBJQU5BIE1hdHJpeC4NCg0KPiBJQU5BIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRzIHRoYXQgdGhlc2UgdGhy ZWUgYWN0aW9ucyBhcmUgdGhlIG9ubHkgb25lcyByZXF1aXJlZCB0byBiZQ0KPiBjb21wbGV0ZWQg dXBvbiBhcHByb3ZhbCBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KDQpUaGlzIGlzIGNvcnJlY3QuIA0KDQp0 aGFua3MsDQpBbGV4IE1heXJob2Zlcg0KDQo= From nobody Wed Feb 4 00:31:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72B51A6FF3; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:31:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YcATmQTNy1q5; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FF5B1A0163; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.50 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:31:26 +0100 Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:31:22 +0100 From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: "drafts-expert-review-comment@iana.org" Thread-Topic: [IANA #803729] Expert Review for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07 Thread-Index: AQHQMa+iM/+W1K9UKk65vxqmNCtYD5zgQZzw Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:31:22 +0000 Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743592@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.163] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Archived-At: Cc: "drinks@ietf.org" , "drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [drinks] [IANA #803729] Expert Review for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07 X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:31:43 -0000 KGF1dGhvciBoYXQgb24pDQoNClBlYXJsLA0KDQpwbGVhc2UgZmluZCBteSByZXNwb25zZXMgdG8g R3JhaGFtJ3MgcXVlc3Rpb25zIGJlbG93Og0KDQo+IFsuLi5dDQo+IEkgZG8gaGF2ZSBhIGNvdXBs ZSBvZiBxdWVzdGlvbnM6DQo+IA0KPiAoYSkgdGhlIFhNTCBhcHBlYXJzIHRvIHVzZSBhdCBsZWFz dCB0d28gbmV3IFVSTnM6DQo+IA0KPiB4bWxuczpzcHBmYj0idXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnhtbDpu czpzcHBmOmJhc2U6MSINCj4geG1sbnM6c3BwZnM9InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczp4bWw6bnM6c3Bw Zjpzb2FwOjEiDQo+DQo+IGJ1dCBvbmx5IHJlZ2lzdGVycyBvbmU6DQo+IA0KPiB1cm46aWV0Zjpw YXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNwcGY6c29hcDoxDQo+IA0KPiBJdCdzIHByb2JhYmx5IGZpbmUgLSBJIHRo aW5rIHRoZSBvdGhlciBpcyByZWdpc3RlcmVkIGluDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRyaW5rcy1zcHAtZnJhbWV3b3JrLTA5I3NlY3Rpb24tMTEuMS4NCj4g V2lsbCB0aGVzZSBkb2N1bWVudHMgYmUgZ29pbmcgZm9yd2FyZCB0b2dldGhlcj8gQSBsaXR0bGUg bW9yZSBleHBsYW5hdGlvbg0KPiBhbmQgY3Jvc3MtcmVmZXJlbmNlIG1pZ2h0IGNvbmNlaXZhYmx5 IGJlIGhlbHBmdWwgKGUuZy4gdGhhdCB0aGUgV1NETA0KPiBkZWZpbml0aW9uIHVzZXMgdGhlc2Ug bmV3IFVSTnMsIGFuZCB3aGVyZSB0aGUgb3RoZXIgb25lIGlzIGRlZmluZWQpLg0KDQpUaGlzIGlz IGNvcnJlY3QgLSB0aGUgcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBvdGhlciBuYW1lc3BhY2UgaXMgcmVx dWVzdGVkIGluIHRoZSBGcmFtZXdvcmsgZG9jdW1lbnQuIEFuZCwgeWVzLCB0aGUgaW50ZW50aW9u IGlzIHRoYXQgYm90aCBkb2N1bWVudHMgbW92ZSBmb3J3YXJkIHRvZ2V0aGVyLCBzaW5jZSB0aGV5 IGFyZSB0aWdodGx5IGNvdXBsZWQgYW55d2F5cy4gDQoNCldlIHdpbGwgYWRkIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9u IGFuZCBjcm9zcy1yZWZlcmVuY2UgdG8gdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHRvZ2V0aGVyIGluIGVpdGhlciBh IG5ldyByZXZpc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgb3IgYW4gUkZDIEVkaXRvciBOb3RlIC0gbXkg cHJvcG9zYWwgZm9yIHN1Y2ggdGV4dCB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byBhZGQgYSBuZXcgcGFyYWdyYXBoIGlu IFNlY3Rpb24gMTIgKElBTkEgQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMpLCBzYXlpbmc6DQoNCk5vdGUgdGhhdCB0 aGUgV1NETCBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIGFsc28gbWFrZXMgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSAidXJuOmlldGY6cGFy YW1zOnhtbDpuczpzcHBmOmJhc2U6MSIgWE1MIE5hbWVzcGFjZSBVUk4sIHdoaWNoIGlzIGRlZmlu ZWQgaW4gW1NQUEZdLg0KDQo+IChiKSBpdCdzIG5vdCBjbGVhciBmcm9tIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyYXRp b24gd2hhdCB0aGUgVVJOIGlzIGJlaW5nIHJlZ2lzdGVyZWQgKmFzKi4NCj4gRnJvbSBjb250ZXh0 LCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IGlzIGFzIGFuICpYTUwgbmFtZXNwYWNlKiwgYnV0IEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgY291 bGQgYmUNCj4gY2xlYXJlciAoYm90aCBYTUwgTmFtZXNwYWNlcyBhbmQgWE1MIFNjaGVtYXMgYXJl IG1lbnRpb25lZCBpbiB0aGUNCj4gYWNjb21wYW55aW5nIHRleHQpLg0KDQpBZ2Fpbiwgd2Ugd2ls bCBhZGRyZXNzIHRoaXMgdG9nZXRoZXIgd2l0aCBvdGhlciBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCwgbXkgcHJvcG9zYWwgaXMgdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2YgU2VjdGlv biAxMiBpbnRvOg0KDQpUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHVzZXMgVVJOcyB0byBkZXNjcmliZSBYTUwgTmFt ZXNwYWNlcyBhbmQgWE1MIFNjaGVtYXMuDQogQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIFtSRkMzNjg4XSwgSUFOQSBp cyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgdG8gcGVyZm9ybSAgcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgVVJO IGluIHRoZSANCiBJQU5BIFhNTCBOYW1lc3BhY2UgUmVnaXN0cnk6DQoNCihwbHVzIGFkZCB0aGUg Zm9sbG93aW5nIExpbmUgdG8gdGhlIGZyb250IG9mIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gcmVxdWVzdCkN Cg0KUmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIHJlcXVlc3QgZm9yIHRoZSBTUFBGIFNPQVAgWE1MIG5hbWVzcGFjZToN Cg0KSG9wZSB0aGF0IGNsYXJpZmllcyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb25zPw0KdGhhbmtzLA0KQWxleA0K From nobody Wed Feb 4 19:20:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC141A0381; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qo19CLZX_rlz; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469F31A037C; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p9so4888853lbv.8; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=t2XjF2KsZrgimBZaOUKWFo4/RcW/JNBYnaeTU34S59s=; b=H/d64PzCzLMXT2zbmwIpMHxzJDhaT+qvHOPrak3ZaUwiFsjXt0v7KEyD5nHWFxpueb lBHNILfyIy7ymwpPtjezKCTWFJbswsyfBEmfSGn1EK5hi5wDUPtjIxgH0J0sFepLCafr TVyieDcASXUlwhcB0Sh3qz4s0zlgazK97YA0XQQT2SztBQB75tdO4eVw9+EyhWHNafGP kmT68X1uiVdEWlidCoYhVvYIckcTC5kAho41ujoebJWafxxL5PusfgXPGQO4BSsNq5Xe ZDdM0s3aL/qfRFxJdDs+wzIMxxz/wQ5ErfWExGnVDO1374bdZGH/YBp27nSSERNGhgWP NRtg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.29.6 with SMTP id f6mr1331862lah.82.1423106386801; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.183.225 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:19:46 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yf1llTZWGfYeszTNr_rDRoej-b4 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:19:56 -0000 > In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well > formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think > a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. Hm. I'm not sure I think it would be helpful. When a document says that you represent [fleeb] in XML, there's always the assumption that you actually correctly implement the [fleeb] representation, and that you do the XML correctly. I don't think that explicitly saying that would be any more useful than explicitly saying that you have to spell the protocol key words correctly, that you have to do the arithmetic correctly, or, for an ASN.1 protocol, that you have to get the ASN.1 right. Of course you do. If, perhaps, there's some situation you can think of where getting some particular thing wrong opens up a particular security hole, maybe it would be worth calling that out. Otherwise, I don't see it. Barry From nobody Wed Feb 4 19:20:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 79E7D1A0390; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC141A0381; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qo19CLZX_rlz; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469F31A037C; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p9so4888853lbv.8; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=t2XjF2KsZrgimBZaOUKWFo4/RcW/JNBYnaeTU34S59s=; b=H/d64PzCzLMXT2zbmwIpMHxzJDhaT+qvHOPrak3ZaUwiFsjXt0v7KEyD5nHWFxpueb lBHNILfyIy7ymwpPtjezKCTWFJbswsyfBEmfSGn1EK5hi5wDUPtjIxgH0J0sFepLCafr TVyieDcASXUlwhcB0Sh3qz4s0zlgazK97YA0XQQT2SztBQB75tdO4eVw9+EyhWHNafGP kmT68X1uiVdEWlidCoYhVvYIckcTC5kAho41ujoebJWafxxL5PusfgXPGQO4BSsNq5Xe ZDdM0s3aL/qfRFxJdDs+wzIMxxz/wQ5ErfWExGnVDO1374bdZGH/YBp27nSSERNGhgWP NRtg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.29.6 with SMTP id f6mr1331862lah.82.1423106386801; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.183.225 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:19:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:19:46 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yf1llTZWGfYeszTNr_rDRoej-b4 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:19:56 -0000 > In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well > formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think > a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. Hm. I'm not sure I think it would be helpful. When a document says that you represent [fleeb] in XML, there's always the assumption that you actually correctly implement the [fleeb] representation, and that you do the XML correctly. I don't think that explicitly saying that would be any more useful than explicitly saying that you have to spell the protocol key words correctly, that you have to do the arithmetic correctly, or, for an ASN.1 protocol, that you have to get the ASN.1 right. Of course you do. If, perhaps, there's some situation you can think of where getting some particular thing wrong opens up a particular security hole, maybe it would be worth calling that out. Otherwise, I don't see it. Barry From nobody Thu Feb 5 03:34:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87B11A7006; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cMb3YNQPmyEs; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778BA1A6FEF; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205113444.23441.80932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:34:46 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a number of comments and one big near DISCUSS point: The definition of your meaning of " transport protocols" is stated just in Section 4.11 and you mean for instance SOAP. However, SOAP is not a transport protocol in the sense as the rest of the world AFAIK is using the term transport protocol. A transport protocol is a layer 4 protocol and not something that is running on top. Can you please change your terminology? Otherwise, all my points below become a DISCUSS, as your requirements basically rule out transport protocols to run over. - Section "4.4. Authentication" authenticated SPP Client is a Registrar. Therefore, the SPPF transport protocol MUST provide means for an SPPF server to authenticate an SPPF Client. This MUST requirement basically lets you without any transport protocol choice left. None to me known transport protocol is supporting the authentication between client and server. Unless you will wait for TCPINC. Perhaps you mean this: "Therefore, SPPF MUST leverage appropriate mechanisms provided by underlying protocol layers for an SPPF server to authenticate an SPPF Client". This will allow to use TLS which is not a transport protocol, but running on top of it. In case you have a different defintion of transport protocol, it would be good to state this. - Section "4.6. Confidentiality and Integrity" Therefore, the transport protocol MUST provide means for data integrity protection. Similar discuss to the point above: None of the IETF transport protocols is providing means for data integrity protection. So you won't ge too far. - Section "4.9. Request and Response Correlation": Same as the ones before: A transport protocol suitable for SPPF MUST allow responses to be correlated with requests. TCP, UDP and SCTP will not offer this. In Section "4.2. Request and Response Model" Therefore, a transport protocol for SPPF MUST follow the request- response model by allowing a response to be sent to the request initiator. The last part is worded a bit strange: "allowing a response to be sent..". How about saying "my ensuring a response to be sent to the..."? In Section "4.3. Connection Lifetime": What is in a quantity short and long-lived? This sentence does not make any sense, unless it is state what a short time period for such a protocol and what a long time period is. In Section "Near Real Time" I am not sure how good or bad one can determine if any protocol is reacting in near real-time. And what is realtime anyhow? Measured in nano seconds, milliseconds, etc? From nobody Thu Feb 5 03:34:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 14B381A7009; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87B11A7006; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cMb3YNQPmyEs; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778BA1A6FEF; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205113444.23441.80932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:34:44 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:34:46 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a number of comments and one big near DISCUSS point: The definition of your meaning of " transport protocols" is stated just in Section 4.11 and you mean for instance SOAP. However, SOAP is not a transport protocol in the sense as the rest of the world AFAIK is using the term transport protocol. A transport protocol is a layer 4 protocol and not something that is running on top. Can you please change your terminology? Otherwise, all my points below become a DISCUSS, as your requirements basically rule out transport protocols to run over. - Section "4.4. Authentication" authenticated SPP Client is a Registrar. Therefore, the SPPF transport protocol MUST provide means for an SPPF server to authenticate an SPPF Client. This MUST requirement basically lets you without any transport protocol choice left. None to me known transport protocol is supporting the authentication between client and server. Unless you will wait for TCPINC. Perhaps you mean this: "Therefore, SPPF MUST leverage appropriate mechanisms provided by underlying protocol layers for an SPPF server to authenticate an SPPF Client". This will allow to use TLS which is not a transport protocol, but running on top of it. In case you have a different defintion of transport protocol, it would be good to state this. - Section "4.6. Confidentiality and Integrity" Therefore, the transport protocol MUST provide means for data integrity protection. Similar discuss to the point above: None of the IETF transport protocols is providing means for data integrity protection. So you won't ge too far. - Section "4.9. Request and Response Correlation": Same as the ones before: A transport protocol suitable for SPPF MUST allow responses to be correlated with requests. TCP, UDP and SCTP will not offer this. In Section "4.2. Request and Response Model" Therefore, a transport protocol for SPPF MUST follow the request- response model by allowing a response to be sent to the request initiator. The last part is worded a bit strange: "allowing a response to be sent..". How about saying "my ensuring a response to be sent to the..."? In Section "4.3. Connection Lifetime": What is in a quantity short and long-lived? This sentence does not make any sense, unless it is state what a short time period for such a protocol and what a long time period is. In Section "Near Real Time" I am not sure how good or bad one can determine if any protocol is reacting in near real-time. And what is realtime anyhow? Measured in nano seconds, milliseconds, etc? From nobody Thu Feb 5 03:58:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453461A870D; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AxpAPxpB6UXo; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854EE1A1AAC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205115847.1989.17813.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:58:49 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Figure 2: What is "rant" here? I don't see that explained. I guess registrant but had to wait for 5.1 to see that. - 6.2, p20, para 1: s/Identity/Identifier/ here? - 9.5: That's a surprise and I bet isn't met by any reasonable protocol. From nobody Thu Feb 5 03:58:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 764A51A1AAC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453461A870D; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AxpAPxpB6UXo; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854EE1A1AAC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205115847.1989.17813.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:58:47 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:58:49 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Figure 2: What is "rant" here? I don't see that explained. I guess registrant but had to wait for 5.1 to see that. - 6.2, p20, para 1: s/Identity/Identifier/ here? - 9.5: That's a surprise and I bet isn't met by any reasonable protocol. From nobody Thu Feb 5 06:11:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36FA1A88D0; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:11:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66HgPa0PtE3G; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A231A8865; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205141037.23089.14609.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:10:37 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:11:09 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When Martin and I chatted about this draft, he was leaning toward a Discuss on the use of the phrase "transport protocol" in this draft. I would have supported that, but wanted to offer two other data points (in the great tradition of TSV, we argue with people even when we agree with them). We are seeing above-layer-four protocols referred to as "transport protocols" in many places. A much-previous IESG used the word "substrate" in http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp56, "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate". If you wanted to switch terms to "substrate", I'd be fine with that, but I'm not sure that's a commonly understood term of art these days. So, a concrete suggestion - you get all the way through Section 4 before you uncloak this text: 4.11. Mandatory Transport At the time of this writing, a choice of transport protocol has been provided in SPP Protocol over SOAP document. To encourage interoperability, the SPPF server MUST provide support for this transport protocol. With time, it is possible that other transport layer choices may surface that agree with the requirements discussed above. Perhaps you could move this to the front of the line early in Section 4, and add a few words like this: None of the existing transport protocols carried directly over IP, appearing as "Protocol" in IPv4 headers or "Next Header" in IPv6 headers, meet the requirements for a "transport" listed in this section. One other quibble about basic terminology. I apologize for spending the last three days talking about IRRs at NANOG 63, but I'd think "Registry" with no qualifier meant something like an IRR in common usage. Would it be possible for you to characterize "registries" with an adjective on first use, in Section 1? I'm not asking for a wholesale terminology swap, of course. 1. Introduction Service providers and enterprises use routing databases known as registries to make session routing decisions for Voice over IP, SMS and MMS traffic exchanges. This document is narrowly focused on the provisioning framework for these registries. This framework prescribes a way for an entity to provision session-related data into a Registry. The data being provisioned can be optionally shared with other participating peering entities. The requirements and use cases driving this framework have been documented in [RFC6461]. From nobody Thu Feb 5 06:34:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165F21A8AFB; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:34:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kuaNv7hzEW1; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9271A8F37; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:33:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205143342.20868.94024.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:33:42 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:34:18 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I just want to check one thing... Section 5: why is there a MUST for Digest auth? What'd be wrong with TLS client auth here? I do wish the WG had considered some alternative to passwords, which don't make so much sense in this use-case. (BTW: You could chose HOBA here I guess, but that's still in the RFC editor queue and not supported by libraries so perhaps doesn't suit. But it'd work. I'm an author of the HOBA spec though, so I'm biased:-) Anyway - can you tell me if the WG considered dropping passwords entirely and mandating TLS client auth be implemented? If the WG seriously considered TLS client auth already, I'll just clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used? Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear. - 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use "Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and "Identifier" is a lot better. - section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or mitigated here? From nobody Thu Feb 5 06:34:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3BAC31A900B; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:34:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165F21A8AFB; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:34:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kuaNv7hzEW1; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9271A8F37; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:33:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205143342.20868.94024.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:33:42 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:34:18 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I just want to check one thing... Section 5: why is there a MUST for Digest auth? What'd be wrong with TLS client auth here? I do wish the WG had considered some alternative to passwords, which don't make so much sense in this use-case. (BTW: You could chose HOBA here I guess, but that's still in the RFC editor queue and not supported by libraries so perhaps doesn't suit. But it'd work. I'm an author of the HOBA spec though, so I'm biased:-) Anyway - can you tell me if the WG considered dropping passwords entirely and mandating TLS client auth be implemented? If the WG seriously considered TLS client auth already, I'll just clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used? Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear. - 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use "Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and "Identifier" is a lot better. - section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or mitigated here? From nobody Thu Feb 5 06:42:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5701D1A903B; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OUXICEeXIFtl; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FDF1A9037; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144204.26403.71464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:42:05 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure why these are RECOMMENDS, but more to the point, am I reading this that there's no mandatory-to-implement version of SOAP or WSDL for SPP over SOAP? I note that you have HTTP/1.1 or higher as a "MUST use" in Section 4. From nobody Thu Feb 5 06:42:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 82A0C1A903F; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5701D1A903B; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OUXICEeXIFtl; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FDF1A9037; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144204.26403.71464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:42:04 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:42:05 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure why these are RECOMMENDS, but more to the point, am I reading this that there's no mandatory-to-implement version of SOAP or WSDL for SPP over SOAP? I note that you have HTTP/1.1 or higher as a "MUST use" in Section 4. From nobody Thu Feb 5 08:31:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BCB1A8938; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:31:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UToSq_V_gYra; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16041A8761; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205163126.26265.44828.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 08:31:26 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:31:31 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (resending after changing the notification to @tools.ietf.org) In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure why these are RECOMMENDS, but more to the point, am I reading this that there's no mandatory-to-implement version of SOAP or WSDL for SPP over SOAP? I note that you have HTTP/1.1 or higher as a "MUST use" in Section 4. From nobody Mon Feb 16 16:20:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BB11A890E; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:20:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVZlXRf8WqlE; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2A91A8909; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:20:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Pete Resnick" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150217002041.31671.39564.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:20:41 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:20:44 -0000 Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.2: s/is not approved for use/MUST NOT be used 3.3: s/MUST/need to s/SHOULD/is expected to 4.1/4.2: s/MUST/will (These are both definitional, not requirements; how could you possibly do otherwise?) 4.5: Refer to the Security Considerations section for further guidance. Please use an xref in here in order to refer to the section number. There are several of these named references throughout the document. Please fix also 5.2.2, 6.1 (two occurrences), 6.3 (two occurrences), 6.4, 6.5 (two occurrences), 6.6 (two occurrences), 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 (two occurrences), 7.5 (two occurrences), 7.6, 9.1 (two occurrences) 4.11: As written, this needs a (normative) reference to -spp-protocol-over-soap. You can't have a MUST requirement without a normative reference. 5.1: I think it's really awful practice to include protocol requirements and syntax definitions inside IANA Considerations. IANA Considerations are for *IANA*, not for the implementer and not for the folks entering items in the registry. I strongly suggest moving the syntax requirements and the ABNF from 11.2 into 5.1 and simply reverse the pointer so that 11.2 points to 5.1. 5.2: (I'm still trying to figure out how to non-normatively define something. :-) ) Can name attributes really be non-ASCII? Aren't these all protocol elements, not user-interface items? I am icked-out by having to use toCasefold, and having to have a reference to specific Unicode version. 5.2.1/5.2.2/5.3: I always find this construction bizzarre: "Any conforming specification MUST define...". They're all MUSTs (save a few MAYs in 5.3), and those MUSTs seem pretty unnecessary. For 5.3, you should simply make the opening paragraph: The following table contains the list of response types that a transport protocol specification needs to provide. An SPPF server MUST implement all of the following at minimum. And then strike "Any conforming specification MUST define a response to indicate that" from all of the entries. Move the MAY bits out of the table, as those aren't part of the description of each of those response types. It'll shorten things up significantly. 5.3: o The value for Attribute Value MUST be the value of the data element to which the preceding Attribute Name refers. o Response type "Attribute value invalid" MUST be used whenever an element value does not adhere to data validation rules. What other choice could an implementation make? In other words, if I were to violate the first MUST, what do you think I'm going to put in to the attribute value that I need to be instructed that I MUST NOT do? 6.4: hostName: Root-relative host name of the name server. The additional term "root-relative" confused me. Are you somehow trying to say that these names MUST NOT have a terminating "." (i.e., they must be relative domain names)? If that's the point, then you should probably say that. Otherwise, I would strike "root-relative". An absolute name (with a terminating ".") should be OK in this context, yes? 10: OLD Where human-readable languages are used in the protocol, those messages SHOULD be tagged according to [RFC5646]... I think you mean that human-readable *messages* that might be displayed to the user are to get language tags, but I don't see anywhere in the spec where you produce human-readable messages. Can you point me to an example. If so, you should probably say: NEW Where human-readable messages that are presented to an end user are used in the protocol, those messages SHOULD be tagged with their language according to [RFC5646]... Also: If tags are absent, the language of the message defaults to "en" (English). That seems like a bad plan. If all of the characters are out of the Arabic script, I'm pretty darn sure that an implicit default language tag of "en" is unlikely to be helpful to an implementation. I would strike that sentence. 11.2: See comment on section 5.1 above. From nobody Mon Feb 16 22:31:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AD01A872C; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TxSarkhiE840; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD9A1A872B; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Pete Resnick" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150217063146.2749.31281.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:46 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:31:47 -0000 Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All editorial. Note that I did not review sections 9 & 10. 1 or 2: Might be nice to define "SPPPoS" for "SPP Protocol over SOAP". Would save a lot of space and make things easier to read. 3: OLD This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. NEW SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher are RECOMMENDED by this document. END 4: s/compliant with this document/of this protocol 5ff: I don't see how the word "conforming" adds anything to this document. Instead of "conforming SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X", why not say "SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X"? 7: Title: s/SPP Protocol SOAP Data Structures/SPP Protocol over SOAP Data Structures From nobody Tue Feb 17 16:24:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763FB1A1EF6; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:24:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bw4Wct5epaLJ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BFD1A1EED; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:24:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150218002406.11812.56671.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:24:06 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:24:07 -0000 Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no objection to the publication of this document, but SOAP, really? I thought we had moved on. From nobody Wed Feb 18 14:05:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73401A1B53; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:05:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tS6-Lsqsgoti; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C6D1A1B0E; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150218220515.8080.5059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:05:15 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:05:18 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 2 -- This document reuses terms from [RFC3261], [RFC5486], use cases and requirements documented in [RFC6461] and the ENUM Validation Architecture [RFC4725]. These are all listed as informative references. If you use terminology defined elsewhere, those references (3261 and 5486) need to be normative (they're required in order to understand the terms used in this doument). -- Section 4.11 -- At the time of this writing, a choice of transport protocol has been provided in SPP Protocol over SOAP document. This would be a good place for a reference to that draft. I think the reference is important, as you've made it MTI; I think it's a normative one. I don't think "At the time of this writing" is necessary, though if you really like it I don't object. It's also missing a "the" and some quotes, as thus: NEW One choice of transport protocol has been provided in the document "SPP Protocol over SOAP" [reference]. END -- Section 11.2 -- Why does the policy need to be RFC Required? Why not Expert Review? For that matter, why not FCFS? You can either point me at mailing list archives where this was discussed, or explain the necessity in response to this comment. While we're talking about OrgIdType, I don't think the document makes it clear what this is, and why new ones would be registered in the first place. Why would we ever need an OrgIdType Namespace other than "iana-en"? Shouldn't the document say something about that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 1 -- 1. A resolution system returns a Look-Up Function (LUF) that comprises the target domain to assist in call routing (as described in [RFC5486]). I don't know that it means for a LUF to "comprise the target domain"; perhaps its a meaning of "comprise" with which I'm unfamiliar. (Similarly for bullet 2.) Also, where in 5486 is this described? Is it Section 4.3.3? It'd be helpful to include that. -- Section 2 -- In addition, this document specifies the following additional terms: You can get rid of "In addition," (my preference) or "additional"; you don't need both. (I would also use "defines" rather than "specifies".) Server: In the context of SPPF, this is an application that receives a provisioning request and responds accordingly. It is sometimes referred to as a Registry. Registry: The Registry operates a master database of Session Establishment Data for one or more Registrants. The latter sentence in the first definition seems to say that "Server" and "Registry" are synonymous. How does it, then, make sense to have separate definitions that are different? And if they're not synonymous, perhaps it's unwise to sometimes refer to a Server as a Registry. In the definition of Registrant: Within the confines of a Registry, a Registrant is uniquely identified by a well-known ID. What is a "well-known ID"? What is well known about it? I ask because the term isn't otherwise used in this document. -- Section 4 subsections -- These subsections are inconsistent in how they refer to the transport protocol (and see Martin's comments about that). Some of those differences don't matter, but I think some do, and I think we'd be better off making the terminology consistent. 4.1, 4.2, 4.10: "a transport protocol for SPPF" 4.3: "a protocol suitable for SPPF" [is the word "suitable" significant here?] 4.4: "the SPPF transport protocol" 4.6: "the transport protocol" [doesn't mention SPPF] 4.7: "a DRINKS transport protocol" [DRINKS, as opposed to SPPF?] 4.8: "a suitable transport protocol for SPPF" 4.9: "a transport protocol suitable for SPPF" You're in a maze of little twisting passages, all different. I suggest picking one phrasing and using it in all nine subsections. -- Section 5.2 -- "Name" attributes that are used as components of object key types MUST be treated case insensitive, more specifically, comparison operations MUST use the toCasefold() function, as specified in Section 3.13 of [Unicode6.1]. It's a small point, but I think it would be better to lead with the more specific requirement, which makes the other unnecessary except by way of explanation: NEW "Name" attributes that are used as components of object key types MUST be compared using the toCasefold() function, as specified in Section 3.13 of [Unicode6.1]. That function performs case-insensitive comparisons. END -- Section 11.2 -- The ABNF allows an OrgIdType Namespace identifier to end with "-"; is that intentional? From nobody Wed Feb 18 14:51:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CFD1A1B8B; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:51:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hC-DQJKQg0tD; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:51:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50DB1A1B89; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:51:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150218225122.15605.69434.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:51:22 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:51:25 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD use persistent connections. You could remove "compliant with this document". But more importantly, the "SHOULD" is not an interoperability requirement. I'd rather see "implementations should use persistent connections for the performance reasons specified above." But this is non-blocking, and there's no need to discuss it. -- Section 5 -- I support Stephen's DISCUSS here. Further on what he says in his comment, this MUST requirement locks you into Digest for all time, regardless of what other authentication mechanisms might be defined and deployed later. That doesn't seem wise. If the real point here is that there are two mechanisms (Basic and Digest), and you want to use Digest because you don't want Basic, then maybe that's how you should say it: ban Basic rather than requiring Digest. From nobody Wed Feb 18 23:58:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09481A88BF; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:58:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CVNPdWXI8YP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672C51A0059; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:58:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150219075817.15928.99963.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:58:17 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:58:19 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD use persistent connections. You could remove "compliant with this document". But more importantly, the "SHOULD" is not an interoperability requirement. I'd rather see "implementations should use persistent connections for the performance reasons specified above." But this is non-blocking, and there's no need to discuss it. Also, RFC 2616 is obsolete. The current reference for HTTP 1.1 is RFC 7230, and this reference needs to be changed to that. -- Section 5 -- I support Stephen's DISCUSS here. Further on what he says in his comment, this MUST requirement locks you into Digest for all time, regardless of what other authentication mechanisms might be defined and deployed later. That doesn't seem wise. If the real point here is that there are two mechanisms (Basic and Digest), and you want to use Digest because you don't want Basic, then maybe that's how you should say it: ban Basic rather than requiring Digest. From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:11:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE491A88DB for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:11:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pyIE0LOK7kxc for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DAA1A07BE for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:11:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.50 ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:11:35 +0100 Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:11:32 +0100 From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: "drinks@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IESG review of Framework and SOAP documents Thread-Index: AdBMGtZHSxcoE+/SS2ONS2anZHU+hg== Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:11:32 +0000 Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546756AAF@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.163] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Archived-At: Subject: [drinks] IESG review of Framework and SOAP documents X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:11:40 -0000 All, as you might have noticed, the IESG review of our two remaining documents a= re ongoing. Several ADs as well as other reviewers have raised DISCUSSes a= nd COMMENTs on various elements of our documents. The process is that document shepherds (that's me and Syed, respectively) r= eview and address these DISCUSSes and COMMENTs, and "negotiate" a path forw= ard with the respective AD. Solutions typically involve either discussing a= nd solving of the points (without any changes to documents), or proposing a= change to the document (via a new revision, or an RFC editor comment).=20 The various comments can be seen here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ballot/=20 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/b= allot/ The IESG will also dicuss our two drafts in todays IESG telechat - so, ther= e might be more comments coming in over the course of today. Since we have = open DISCUSSes, it is very unlikely that the drafts will be approved today,= particularly since we have indicated in the past that these documents shou= ld proceed together. Therefore, i ask document authors to check out the comments we received, an= d coordinate with the respective document shepherd on a response. thanks, Alex From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B48A1A0404; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:24:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GN4bXVM0FKHE; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.lax.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCB71A0065; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp1.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t14GOoF0014520; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:24:50 GMT Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B7449C20396; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:24:50 +0000 (UTC) RT-Owner: Nobody From: "Pearl Liang via RT" In-Reply-To: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743484@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> References: <20150202150942.30670.88202.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743484@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> Message-ID: X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA X-RT-Ticket: IANA #807166 X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/) X-RT-Originator: pearl.liang@icann.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:24:50 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:31 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] [IANA #807166] AW: Evaluation: to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: drafts-eval@iana.org List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:24:52 -0000 HI Alex, > Anyways, i will go back to your original mail, and answer the question > right away. Great! The question is about action #3 for section 11.2. That "Upon review, the experts have approved this one." was for Actions #1 and #2. Thanks, ~pl On Wed Feb 04 07:56:36 2015, alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at wrote: > Hello Pearl, > > > IANA NOT OK. Comments in tracker > > IANA Actions - YES > > > > Question, posted in the Last Call comment (ticket 802710) and the > > tracker, > > about IANA action #3 for section 11.2 of this draft has not been > > answered. > > > > Thank you, > > I understand there was a question about the draft, however, i also > understood that message of yours: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/current/msg01310.html > > Where you said "Upon review, the experts have approved this one." and > therefore i had the impression the issue was solved by that subsequent > review. > > Anyways, i will go back to your original mail, and answer the question > right away. > > thanks, > Alex > From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324051A8BC0; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pp3xk3-yIHw0; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733511A8BBD; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kathleen Moriarty" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:57:25 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:57:29 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. I'd be fine with seeing text in subsequent documents that tells you how to handle non-conformance to the schema or other issues that might result in a validation problem (if restrictions for this go beyond XML conformance). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing the SecDir review from 2 years ago. I see that you have added text to 9.1 to say integrity protection and confidentiality protections are to be supported by the transport protocol. This and the other considerations look good. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03495.html From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 86A7D1A8BC2; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324051A8BC0; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pp3xk3-yIHw0; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733511A8BBD; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:57:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kathleen Moriarty" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204165725.7959.83487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:57:25 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:57:30 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. I'd be fine with seeing text in subsequent documents that tells you how to handle non-conformance to the schema or other issues that might result in a validation problem (if restrictions for this go beyond XML conformance). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing the SecDir review from 2 years ago. I see that you have added text to 9.1 to say integrity protection and confidentiality protections are to be supported by the transport protocol. This and the other considerations look good. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03495.html From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913271A1AFB; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W20R8BqeA8PG; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414E81A1A64; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kathleen Moriarty" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204183336.5606.78084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:33:38 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your work on this draft. I have some comments and suggestions that I'd like to be considered: Section 4: Instead of HTTP(S), I'd prefer to see HTTP/TLS. Would that cause any heartburn? It would make the text consistent with the next section. Please change SSL to TLS in this section as well. Section 5: OK, I see you have TLS listed here, along with a minimum version by reference to the RFC for TLS 1.2. All good, thanks. A pointer to the BCP from UTA: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/ following the last sentence, might be helpful. It's in IETF last call now, so it shouldn't hold up this draft and could even be done as an informational reference so it won't matter that it's not published yet. Alternatively, this reference could be in section 11.1. Section 7.3 Is a response code needed when the XML does not validate to the schema or other requirements that may exist in addition to schema conformance? Or does this happen somewhere else or perhaps this should be stated as part of one of the existing response codes? From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0FEF01A1AE3; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913271A1AFB; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W20R8BqeA8PG; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414E81A1A64; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kathleen Moriarty" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204183336.5606.78084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:33:38 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your work on this draft. I have some comments and suggestions that I'd like to be considered: Section 4: Instead of HTTP(S), I'd prefer to see HTTP/TLS. Would that cause any heartburn? It would make the text consistent with the next section. Please change SSL to TLS in this section as well. Section 5: OK, I see you have TLS listed here, along with a minimum version by reference to the RFC for TLS 1.2. All good, thanks. A pointer to the BCP from UTA: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/ following the last sentence, might be helpful. It's in IETF last call now, so it shouldn't hold up this draft and could even be done as an informational reference so it won't matter that it's not published yet. Alternatively, this reference could be in section 11.1. Section 7.3 Is a response code needed when the XML does not validate to the schema or other requirements that may exist in addition to schema conformance? Or does this happen somewhere else or perhaps this should be stated as part of one of the existing response codes? From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42681A007D; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuZY9NywhMFw; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61E1A0072; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204235300.19482.50427.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:53:00 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:53:03 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have one point to discuss that should be easy to resolve. = Section 6 = A bunch of places in this section reference the Create and Modify operations, neither of which are defined in Section 7. I think these are both meant to be Add operations? Or if not, a Modify operation needs to be defined and made distinct from Add. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 3.3 = What does "RFC level document" mean? RFC? Or perhaps you want to use the "permanent and readily available" standard from RFC 5226? = Section 5.2.1 = s/SPPF object that/SPPF object/ = Section 5.2.2 = s/Refer the "Framework Data Model Objects"/Refer to the "Framework Data Model Objects"/ = Section 6 = s/refer the "Framework Operations"/refer to the "Framework Operations"/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0307C1A0087; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42681A007D; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuZY9NywhMFw; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61E1A0072; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150204235300.19482.50427.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:53:00 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:53:03 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have one point to discuss that should be easy to resolve. = Section 6 = A bunch of places in this section reference the Create and Modify operations, neither of which are defined in Section 7. I think these are both meant to be Add operations? Or if not, a Modify operation needs to be defined and made distinct from Add. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 3.3 = What does "RFC level document" mean? RFC? Or perhaps you want to use the "permanent and readily available" standard from RFC 5226? = Section 5.2.1 = s/SPPF object that/SPPF object/ = Section 5.2.2 = s/Refer the "Framework Data Model Objects"/Refer to the "Framework Data Model Objects"/ = Section 6 = s/refer the "Framework Operations"/refer to the "Framework Operations"/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39A71A88BB; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:58:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m36on0ZlTKnH; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:58:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736F81A88B6; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:58:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kathleen Moriarty" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205135830.3400.56042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 05:58:30 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:58:32 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing the SecDir review from 2 years ago. I see that you have added text to 9.1 to say integrity protection and confidentiality protections are to be supported by the transport protocol. This and the other considerations look good. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03495.html In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. Barry says this isn't needed for apps and is assumed. This surfaced as a possible concern for me as a result of it being in the INCH/MILE schema related drafts, so it may have been an apps request at the time or could have been that the WGs were aware of a possible issue since they involve incident responders. In case there is an issue, I put a question out to someone that can help, but suspect it may be a result of additional processing requirements that we had on the schema in addition to general conformance that could result in an issue. I didn't see any that are out of the ordinary in the subsequent draft, so this may not be needed. Hopefully I'll have a response later, but would say there is nothing to do unless that comes in with a reason good enough. Text in subsequent documents that tells you how to handle non-conformance to the schema or other issues that might result in a validation problem (if restrictions for this go beyond XML conformance) would be needed of that were the case, not here. This was a request for a simple statement, that may not be needed. From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C321A8867; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gDGAafRMaJW; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF31B1A8845; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144923.7587.22585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:31 -0800 Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:24 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BF2531A886E; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C321A8867; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gDGAafRMaJW; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF31B1A8845; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144923.7587.22585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:24 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E941A885A; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVQVguk2tUiV; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6121A885C; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144923.7587.93809.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:25 -0000 Telechat date has been changed to 2015-02-19 from 2015-02-05 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CE0001A88AC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E941A885A; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVQVguk2tUiV; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6121A885C; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144923.7587.93809.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:23 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:26 -0000 Telechat date has been changed to 2015-02-19 from 2015-02-05 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C77B1A88AC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vmm13fb1mzy8; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56201A8848; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144933.31229.57174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:33 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:35 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3561A88AC; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJIJdwugfjIm; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8EC1A8866; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:49:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150205144934.31229.81664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:34 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Subject: [drinks] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:39 -0000 Telechat date has been changed to 2015-02-19 from 2015-02-05 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AD31A6FEE; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:36:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-siKHY6ELXk; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC7F1A6F0E; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z11so11504221lbi.10; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:36:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=szJagYjF5GiU1HvInSpYKQX7iNrrkfcLGJZXt39UmTI=; b=0mPeDPwGSP/IOoOPbnt87eUm2UnQcMGdvZ2pYBZDjMUi3fR5KA8tsIcWBh/5vR5I0Q 9lglGaIl5ImZ5WjN0rawas0sfNBEfZbsJWRameQENpla7sSSD4+JfRNd7GejQebWPtJF 5O9sLBRm3h1aN72qh3mTs0nZakW33RVDbOUbMAvmh1i7bncjwEUC6xUpHS2q5hoZhJIP gJdyFvprCMtsTKU4SmbGYOaX/8hmzH6xyQ9COWuXWiJgWoQ2UK0lqUSJXuR7gS8Kqmhu nNq2sfsfUisLhW0OEevLDihuacGQ03/v/3OAgHfhnKa7ZjwjV+z76Ac5nnQpvr8yUdeX zzXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.204.97 with SMTP id kx1mr298287lac.75.1423175801947; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:36:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.167.134 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:36:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150205135830.3400.56042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150205135830.3400.56042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:36:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: The IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:36:46 -0000 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for addressing the SecDir review from 2 years ago. I see that you > have added text to 9.1 to say integrity protection and confidentiality > protections are to be supported by the transport protocol. This and the > other considerations look good. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03495.html > > In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well > formed and validated to prevent application and security issues? I think > a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document. > Barry says this isn't needed for apps and is assumed. This surfaced as a > possible concern for me as a result of it being in the INCH/MILE schema > related drafts, so it may have been an apps request at the time or could > have been that the WGs were aware of a possible issue since they involve > incident responders. In case there is an issue, I put a question out to > someone that can help, but suspect it may be a result of additional > processing requirements that we had on the schema in addition to general > conformance that could result in an issue. I didn't see any that are out > of the ordinary in the subsequent draft, so this may not be needed. > Hopefully I'll have a response later, but would say there is nothing to > do unless that comes in with a reason good enough. > > Text in subsequent documents that tells you how to handle non-conformance > to the schema or other issues that might result in a validation problem > (if restrictions for this go beyond XML conformance) would be needed of > that were the case, not here. This was a request for a simple statement, > that may not be needed. > I got a response from Roman Danyliw at CERT/CC. Although for this draft I have not heard what the reason is for not validating conformance. Is it extensibility, performance, or left up to the implementation? I'm guessing it's not the following from Roman: "Yes, there has exploitation of XML parser due to actual vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2014-4118) in them and because of other cleverness (e.g., https://www.owasp.org/index.php/XML_External_Entity_%28XXE%29_Processing or CVE-2014-8090). XML parsing libraries are complicated so they're subject to the same implementation flaws as any other piece of software. However, It's not clear you can jump from these flaws to say that's why you want only loose XML conformance in a protocol. You'd be mixing design and implementation. You can validate XML without using a parser, you just need to write the customer code then." Thanks, Kathleen > -- Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Thu Feb 19 00:22:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86711A1B60; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:44:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2Jb30hxPNjo; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:44:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.lax.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 019D81A1B29; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp1.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19HibM1028643; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:44:37 GMT Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8A70CC20480; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:44:37 +0000 (UTC) RT-Owner: pearl.liang From: "Pearl Liang via RT" In-Reply-To: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743592@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> References: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546743592@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> Message-ID: X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA X-RT-Ticket: IANA #807172 X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/) X-RT-Originator: pearl.liang@icann.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:44:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:22:32 -0800 Cc: drinks-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [drinks] [IANA #807172] AW: Expert Review for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07 X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: drafts-expert-review@iana.org List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:44:40 -0000 Hi all, Graham has reviewed the below comments and has no further question. Thanks, ~pl On Wed Feb 04 08:31:51 2015, alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at wrote: > (author hat on) > > Pearl, > > please find my responses to Graham's questions below: > > > [...] > > I do have a couple of questions: > > > > (a) the XML appears to use at least two new URNs: > > > > xmlns:sppfb="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:base:1" > > xmlns:sppfs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:soap:1" > > > > but only registers one: > > > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:soap:1 > > > > It's probably fine - I think the other is registered in > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework- > > 09#section-11.1. > > Will these documents be going forward together? A little more > > explanation > > and cross-reference might conceivably be helpful (e.g. that the WSDL > > definition uses these new URNs, and where the other one is defined). > > This is correct - the registration of the other namespace is requested > in the Framework document. And, yes, the intention is that both > documents move forward together, since they are tightly coupled > anyways. > > We will add explanation and cross-reference to the document together > in either a new revision of the document or an RFC Editor Note - my > proposal for such text would be to add a new paragraph in Section 12 > (IANA Considerations), saying: > > Note that the WSDL Specification also makes use of the > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:base:1" XML Namespace URN, which is > defined in [SPPF]. > > > (b) it's not clear from the registration what the URN is being > > registered *as*. > > From context, I think it is as an *XML namespace*, but I think it > > could be > > clearer (both XML Namespaces and XML Schemas are mentioned in the > > accompanying text). > > Again, we will address this together with other changes to the > document, my proposal is to change the first paragraph of Section 12 > into: > > This document uses URNs to describe XML Namespaces and XML Schemas. > According to [RFC3688], IANA is requested to perform registration > of the following URN in the > IANA XML Namespace Registry: > > (plus add the following Line to the front of the registration request) > > Registration request for the SPPF SOAP XML namespace: > > Hope that clarifies the questions? > thanks, > Alex From nobody Thu Feb 19 11:25:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673DE1A008A; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:25:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88GXQdQR747l; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3B11A003A; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:25:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150219192548.24280.72375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:25:48 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:25:49 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ From nobody Thu Feb 19 11:26:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514771A0086; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:26:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTGt6pwA9WMP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:26:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C51C1A0039; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:26:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150219192608.24627.52671.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:26:08 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [drinks] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:26:09 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/