Emily,
Thanks for the feedback. I can see your point about the Figure in 1.3 and I will make a note in the document to fix that for the next working draft and CSD.
I am not sure what you mean though about the label of RFC6838. Can you perhaps make a suggestion in the master document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsiWY7TGqt9yH6QUXv4c-opXSr3wR0TDMt8Q0yJjpoo/edit#
For section 1.6.9 I made a suggestion in the document itself to delete that word. Can you verify that is what you mean and add a comment to my suggestion if you agree? Also, if the values are out of order, please make a suggestion to fix.
For section 7, I made a suggestion to fix that typo.
I think your suggestion for sections 8.1.3 and 8.4.3 are reasonable. I have made a suggestion in the master document to have those deleted for now. Please review.
The master version of the document can be viewed at the following URL. If you can not see the comments and suggestions, please request access from within the document itself. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsiWY7TGqt9yH6QUXv4c-opXSr3wR0TDMt8Q0yJjpoo/edit#
Thanks
Bret
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:19:38 PM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti] Invitation to comment on TAXII v2.1 - ends January 21
I'm a brand new member so I'm reading the TAXII specification for the first time. I read the PDF version of the TAXII 2.1 Committee Specification Draft 02 / Public Review Draft 01. I found only a couple of minor issues as follows:
clarification Figure 1.3 The object being passed back is not a response to a recent "Subscribe" message, so rather than having "Subscribe" next to the message, the graphic would be clearer if the receivers were labelled "Subscribers" rather than "Consumers".
format 1.3 Normative References The label [RFC6838] is in the reference description field rather than the reference label field.
grammar 1.6.9 The second sentence refers to Authorization and WWW-Authentication respectively, but they are out of order so respectively doesn't apply. Recommend dropping the word respectively.
typo 7 Title sentence has a typo "extent" should read "extend"
clarification 8.1.3/8.4.3 In the conformance section, the conformance requirements for Channels are listed as RESERVED. Without actively participating in the TC, it is difficult to understand what this means in practice for a server that is otherwise conformant to the requirements. I would recommend removing these sections until Channels are defined.
|
Thanks! Emily Emily Ratliff STSM, IBM Security Research Initiative Lead |
 |
|
|
|
|
Phone:1-512-286-9947 |
Mobile:1-512-653-1052 E-mail: Emily.Ratliff@ibm.com |
11501 Burnet Rd
Austin, TX 78758-3400 United States |