I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-03-18
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-20
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an
informational RFC, but there are issues which should be considered
I'd like to see some text clarifying the relationship of this draft to
the Open Authentication initiative. The draft states that the work has
been endorsed by that group. Is this draft merely intended to document
work done by that group? (I note that the XML name space is scoped to
. ) Or is intended to specify an interoperable extension to the IODEF
format? If the latter, how much consideration has been given to
whether this should properly be an informational vs a standards-track
Please expand IODEF on first use.
Section 1, paragraph 4:
Please expand IODEF and XML on first use.
"Verification procedures and the specific requirements for
authorization are outside the scope of this specification."
Are these requirements specified elsewhere? They seem pretty
fundamental for this mechanism to be useful.
Section 4, paragraph 3:
"The primary difference in the "inbound" and "outbound" reports is the
removal in the "outbound" reports of reporting organization
information in order to protect confidentiality. We elaborate on this
aspect in section 7, Security Considerations."
It's a little unclear to me at this point what the outbound report
contains and what it is used for. Maybe a discussion of what network
element comsumes "inbound" reports and what generates "outbound
reports" would help.
Section 4, 2nd paragraph on Page 7
(nit) There is an unfortunate line break in EventData.AdditionalData
that has the effect of rendering the paragraph incoherent. It looks
like AdditionalData starts a new sentence.
Has there been thought whether OtherEventType needs to be registered
The section is titled "Optional Contents" but goes on to say these
contents SHOULD be included. That's really stronger than "optional".
Perhaps the section should be retitled something to the effect of
"The IPv4 or IPv6 address or subnet mask..."
Address of what?
Section 6.3, first paragraph:
I'm having trouble parsing the last paragraph. I suspect a missing
comma, along with the inconsistent verb tense ("performing", "views",
"has changed") contribute to the problem.
"A URL that represents the detailed definition of the fraud event
Does represent mean that the URL points to the definition, or somehow
encodes it? Is there a definition of the format of the data this will
point to? What URL schemes can go here?
I think the security consideration section should talk a little more
on what attacks are known possible, and how the required security
features address them. That is, _why_ we need signatures, etc. Don't
just assume it to be obvious.
Section 8.3, first paragraph:
"A simple mechanism MUST enable the query of any data to return a
valid reponse without disclosing the unique Identifier of a specific
Is the requirement that such a mechanism must simply exist, or that
the implementation must actually use it?
paragraphs 2 through end of section
"We suggest to use" should probably be recast as normative language.
Also, I'd like to see a little more about how OpaqueIdentifier is to
be used--I gather that the publisher needs to be able to correlate the
OpaqueIdentifier with the original IncidentID Field in the future? If
so, we should mention that.
I think we need a little more here--if you use a secure transport, do
you still need application level crypto? Can you say a little more
about what security properties are needed? Also, do you mean SSL or TLS?
IETF mailing list