Subject: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of Widex Requirements Draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:02:18 -0500

The -04 version of the Widex Requirements draft has addressed
all of the comments in my Gen-ART review, and hence is ready for
publication as an Informational RFC.

Many thanks to the authors,
--David
p.s. My spell checker wants to render Widex as Windex - I
	suspect there's a horrible UI joke hiding in there ...
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Cc: Black, David; 'Dean Willis'; 'Lisa Dusseault'
> Subject: Gen-ART review of Widex Requirements Draft
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-widex-requirements-03
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: December 19, 2006
> IETF LC End Date: December 25, 2006
> 
> Summary:
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
> that should be fixed before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> A short draft describing the requirements for the widex framework
> and protocol design.  It's generally in good shape - all of these
> comments are minor.
> 
> The opening sentence of section 3.4 mentions "the Widex 
> working group".
> This mention should be removed as the published RFC will significantly
> outlive the working group.
> 
> Section 3.4 switches between Widex objects and messages entirely too
> quickly, e.g.:
> 
>    There are two types of Widex Objects:
> 
>    WO Update (WO.Update):
>       WO.Update messages contain description ...
> 
> The word "messages" should be removed from Section 3.4 and replaced
> by "objects" throughout to avoid this confusion, especially as a Widex
> "message" may wind up containing multiple "objects".
> 
> Section 4.1: 
> 
>    o  The framework MUST be modular, e.g. multiple service 
> discovery and
>       session setup mechanisms may be used.
> 
> Nice examples, but a list of components that MUST be replaceable would
> be even better.
> 
>    o  The synchronisation MUST occur at a fairly loose level 
> that allows
>       for a simple approach to propagating changes.
> 
> Synchronization of what with what?
> 
>    o  The framework and the synchronisation protocol SHOULD be
>       stateless.
> 
> Huh?  As I understand what's going on, there's a large XML document
> on both sides that describes the user interface, and the exchanged
> objects describe changes to that document.  That does not sound like
> a stateless protocol.  What was this supposed to mean?
> 
> Section 4.3:
> 
>    o  The Widex Objects MUST support client initiated updates.
>    o  The Widex Objects MUST support server initiated updates.
> 
> Should that be client initiated events (cf. interfaces in
> diagram in Section 2)?
> 
> Section 6:
> 
>    As a means to support remote user interfaces, a number of security
>    considerations need to be addressed, including the potential for
>    unauthorized access to application services, monitoring of
>    interactions by unauthorized third parties, spoofing of application
>    services as a means to support phishing attacks, and denial of
>    service attacks.  Requirements defined in this document MUST allow
>    for the implementation according to best common practices.
> 
> The last sentence seems wrong, as it's pointing to this draft - it
> should be placing requirements on the to-be-designed widex protocol
> and framework to address these considerations.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art