Subject: [mile] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-mile-03-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:10:55 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mile-03-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mile/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I have a BLOCKing concern with what's being proposed, but I do
have a significant concern about how it's being characterized.

In this text,

"The MILE WG is focused on two areas: standardizing a data format for
representing incident and indicator data, and standardizing transport
protocol(s) for sharing the structured data"

and in this text,

"Though the working group also adopted Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID, RFC
6545) as further enabling information exchange of security policy, its
transport mechanism, based on the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), led to
the second focus for MILE: adopting more modern transport through the adoption
of a RESTful interface through ROLIE (Resource-oriented lightweight information
exchange, RFC 8322) and the adoption of a publish-subscribe model through
XMPP-Grid (draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid). The MILE WG will continue to:

"- Update and enhance these transport protocols to optimize their performance
and representations. More explicitly, documenting how ROLIE can transport JSON
representations.

"- Define and document how these transport protocols can also be used to support
other security information exchange formats. For example, documenting how ROLIE
can transport STIX (Secure Threat Intelligence eXchange) data."

I'm not sure that what I think is being described, is exactly "standardizing
transport protocol(s)". I THINK it's more like "standardizing mapping onto an
application substrate", if I'm using the vocabulary of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-07 correctly, and I'm
wondering whether all of these formats would end up riding over HTTP, which
would shorten any conversation about my ballot a lot.

Am I confused here?

If this work is correctly described as "standardizing a transport protocol", I
should probably be balloting BLOCK.

---

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 02:52:18 +0000

Hi Spencer,
Thanks for the careful read of the charter! As you surmise, our intent is to standardize the mapping into transport substrate.  The group
Has currently adopted the use of HTTPs in ROLIE but also XMPP in the XMPP-Grid.

Warm regards, Nancy

On 10/23/18, 20:11, "mile on behalf of Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    
    In this text,

    and in this text,

    

    Am I confused here?

    _______________________________________________
    mile mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 22:18:28 -0500

Hi, Nancy,

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:52 PM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
> Thanks for the careful read of the charter! As you surmise, our intent is
> to standardize the mapping into transport substrate.  The group

It would probably be useful to use that terminology. The current
terminology just woke up every TSV WG chair in a cold sweat :-)

Spencer

>
> Warm regards, Nancy
>
> On 10/23/18, 20:11, "mile on behalf of Spencer Dawkins" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>