|
You should have comment and suggest rights now. You will probably have to reload the document for them to take effect.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
PGP
Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
Thanks, Bret! I have requested access from within the document so that I can see the comments that you have made.
For the RFC6838 reference, it indeed appears correctly in the master document, but it appears incorrect in the review drafts, both in the docx and pdf versions. Either it has already been fixed in the master document or perhaps
it is an error that gets introduced during the export step.
Appreciate your fast response!
Emily
Emily Ratliff
STSM, IBM Security Research Initiative Lead |
<mime-attachment.jpg>
|
|
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
|
From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
To: Emily Ratliff <Emily.Ratliff@ibm.com>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 01/03/2019 05:39 PM
Subject: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Invitation to comment on TAXII v2.1 - ends January 21
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
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
From:
cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Emily Ratliff <Emily.Ratliff@ibm.com>
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
Hi!
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 |
<mime-attachment.jpg>
|
|
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
|
|
