>> A more appropriate requirement for both of these situations would be to put text in the Security Considerations section requiring any consumer of TimeStampedData to validate the entire filename according the rules of its local filesystem and its intended usage before using some or all of the name to store the data. I agree. I will revise my draft accordingly. Thank you, Adriano -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Bill McQuillan [mailto:McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx] Inviato: venerdì 8 febbraio 2008 22.35 A: IETF Discussion; Santoni Adriano Oggetto: Comment on draft-santoni-timestampeddata-02 Perusing this draft I came upon a paragraph that seemed to need comment: 3. Compliance requirements ... Compliant applications SHALL always populate the fileName field of TimeStampedData structure with a non-empty string, which is supposed to be the real name of the time-stamped file. Path information MUST NOT be included. A valid example is "patent123.doc". An invalid example is "c:\Documents and settings\John\Desktop\patent123.doc". It seems to me that the MUST for a non-null filename presumes that there will never be a situation where the data has no natural filename and the identity of the data is known from other context information. If it ever becomes necessary for a convention to arise where data, that doesn't have a natural filename, gets some name like "unknown.name", I believe that it would be better to allow a null name to be given. Note that some sort of validation must be done by the consumer of the TimeStampedData anyway to prevent a filename being used that has invalid syntax for the consumers filesystem or would overwrite another file that happens to have the same name, etc. Further, it seems to me that "path information MUST NOT be included" makes too many assumptions about the larger context. If the file happens to have a natural name which, for instance, has date information in the path, like: "/logs/2008/02/08/transaction.log" and is routinely sent each day, the so-called "real name" of the file (transaction.log) is useless since it would be the same for every version of the file. A more appropriate requirement for both of these situations would be to put text in the Security Considerations section requiring any consumer of TimeStampedData to validate the entire filename according the rules of its local filesystem and its intended usage before using some or all of the name to store the data. -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf