Joseph,
Thank you for performing the document shepherd review and creating the writeup.
You brought up 2 points in your comments, that I provide thoughts on below:
1. Section 3.1 - the paragraph that specifies when “name” must be mandatory.
The text needs more work to be precise. The current text only specifies “name”
is required when “type”==“custom”, where “name” is mandatory too when
“type”==“stat”.
* When the “type” is “stat”, then the use of the “name” is mandatory to
define the “stat” sub-type, per the definition of the “stat” type and the
definition of the “name” attribute. I include both below for reference:
i. "stat":
Provides a login security statistical warning that MUST set the "name"
attribute to the name of the statistic.
* How about updating this description to highlight that the “name”
is used to define the statistic sub-type, such as “Provides a login security
statistical warning that MUST set the "name" attribute to the name of the
statistic sub-type.”? When using the “stat” type, the use of the sub-type is
required by using the “name” attribute.
ii. "name":
Used to define a sub-type when the "type" attribute is not "custom" or the full
type name when the "type" attribute is "custom".
* This description is accurate for the “stat” type, since the
“name” attribute is used to define the sub-type.
1. In Section 4.1, <loginSec:userAgent> specifies that one of the child
element must be included if the request contained <loginSec:userAgent>. In the
Formal Syntax section, the XML does not enforce it. If the XML syntax uses
what XML Schema offers, then editors should check on <choice> element.
* I’m unaware of a clean method to enforce having at least one of the
sub-elements (app, tech, and os) via the XML schema, since there can be one to
three of the elements that is not well suited for the use of a <choice>. We
need to ensure that there are no duplicates and maintaining the order would be
preferred. Do you or anyone else have a proposal that can be used? My
recommendation is to keep the XML schema as is and to have the server validate
the existence of at least one sub-element after the XML parser, per the
language of the specification.
Thanks,
--
JG
[cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joseph Yee
<j...@afilias.info>
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:09 PM
To: regext <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Document Shepherd Write Up of Login-Security
All,
I had uploaded the document shepherd write up of login-security and available
at the link below for your reference:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-login-security/shepherdwriteup/
Best,
Joseph
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
