Hi, This version addresses all of the concerns from my gen-art review. Thanks, Ben. On Aug 21, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Haleplidis Evangelos <ehalep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greetings Ben, > > Thank you very much for the review and the discussion. > I have made all the relevant changes and have submitted (just in time it > seems) the new version. > > Regards, > Evangelos Haleplidis. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:22 AM >> To: Haleplidis Evangelos >> Cc: draft-ietf-forces-model-extension.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen- >> art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03 >> >> >> On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Haleplidis Evangelos >> <ehalep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> [ΕΗ] I discussed with Joel with regards to the copyright issues. >>> The short answer is that this document draws directly from RFC5812 >> and >>> relies on RFC5812 for such issues (as it uses the same boilerplate). >>> >>> Is this satisfactory? >>> >> >> Hrmm. So it does. I somehow had it in my head it had the older >> boilerplate. I must have gotten that from one of the draft versions So, >> never mind :-) >> >> (It's interesting that IDNits apparently looked at the date of >> publication of the first 00 draft, not the RFC. I'm curious the history >> of what happened with RFCs that were in-process works and had changes >> in authorship at the time 5378 was published--but that's not this >> draft's problem and should probably happen in a bar discussion.) >> >> [...] >> >>>> >>>> In this particular case, it's not clear to me if the MUST actually >>>> constrains a choice vs being a statement of fact. If you believe it >>>> to be the former then I am okay with it. The rewording might help. >>>> >>> >>> [ΕΗ] I reworded it and provided also an example. The text now reads: >>> >>> "When optional access type for components within a struct are >> defined, >>> these components's access type MUST override the access type of the >>> struct. For example if a struct has an access type of read-write but >>> has a component that is a read-only counter, the counter's access >> type MUST be read-only." >>> >>> I believe that it is an implementation constraint as there are two >>> possibilities (override or not). With the "MUST" we constrain it to >>> one (override). >>> >>> I also changed the two "it MUST be ignored" to "the access type MUST >>> be ignored" to better specify what "it" is. >>> >> >> This helps. >> >> For the record, my suggestion on more active voice was to say what must >> do the ignoring. But I think what you've got is good enough. >> >> [...] >> >> >>>> >>>> No, I am not one. Hopefully this will get a SecDir review as well. >>>> But that sort of review usually goes better if the Security >>>> Consideration section shows your reasoning, along the lines of >>>> listing the high-level types of changes, and for each, why it has no >>>> new security impact. Your response contains more of that sort of >>>> thing; it might help to add it (or parts of it) to the draft. >>>> >>>> I was a bit concerned that the default version for inheritance could >>>> be an issue, but you addressed that elsewhere. >>>> >>>> [...]= >>> >>> [ΕΗ] Ok, added part of this. Now the security considerations read the >>> following: >>> >>> This document adds only a few constructs to the initial model defined >>> in RFC5812, namely namely a new event, some new properties and a way >>> to define optional access types and complex metadata. These >> constructs >>> do not change the nature of the the initial model. In addition this >>> document addresses and clarifies an issue with the inheritance model >>> by introducing the version of the derivedFrom LFB class. >>> Thus the security considerations defined in RFC5812 applies to this >>> document as well as the changes proposed here are simply constructs >> to >>> write XML library definitions, as where in RFC5812 and have no effect >>> on security semantics with the protocol. >>> >> >> You might consider adding something to say that the inheritance model >> change also does not change the security considerations. (Maybe it >> makes things better, by removing the potential for choosing a wrong >> parent class? Not sure if that's a security issue, unless there was >> some kind of parent-assertion attack.) >> >> It does seem like the inheritance change is a bona-fide extension, not >> just a clarification, since you added the version attribute.= >