[IDS] comments on binding spec.

[IDS] comments on binding spec.

[IDS] comments on binding spec.

Dave Whitehead david at lexmark.com
Mon Jun 22 21:05:28 UTC 2009


All,

Below are my comments on the binding specification through section 6.

dhw

David H. Whitehead
Development Engineer
Lexmark International, Inc.
859.825.4914
davidatlexmarkdotcom

=====================

Binding Spec

Other Terminology -- need to update definitions to those in attr spec.

3.1 -- delete "... or personal firewalls."

4.1 "a transport" " the transport" ???

4.2 define Type-Length-Value data type ???  Refer to MS SOH spec

        could the third paragraph be any harder to read?

4.3.1.1 tie SHA/SHV to SoH/SoHR (respectively).

        table: 6->64  also "must be set to 0" is confusing to way it is 
arranged.

4.3.1.2  we need something better than "... an array of HRESULT values 
..."

4.3.1.3  "... the type of failure of a failure has occurred."

        (Response)

4.3.1.5.  "... MUST be on transmission and ignored on receipt."

        should we include the IANA protocol numbers?

        Should we include a statement about either all the open or all the 
blocked?

4.3.1.8  should we note the 3-byte vs 4-byte SMI codes???

4.3.1.9  "uniquely" -- only with version number.

        need TLV subtype.

4.3.1.10  should we define these numbers or assume vendors are smart?

        HCD_Firmware_Version (16 bytes): a vendor-specific 64-bit field

4.3.1.11 again "uniquely" only with name.

4.3.1.12 again "uniquely" only with name.

4.3.2   need to talk about this one.

4.3.2.1  again "uniquely" only with number.  need to look globally.

        Correlaction_ID (several places)

        "... correlates it with related ..." -- relates with related -- 
need something better.

        "Identifier that includes this attribute within a set of 
attributes that MUST be evaluated together."
        "A Set specifier, unique within an evaluation instance, which 
allows attributes to be grouped together for evaluation."

        Required to associate the name, versions, and patch level 
attributes together.

        Downloadable -- we changed terms here.  Also, I don't like the 
abbreviation "AP."

4.3.2.2  unique is okay here.

        HCD_Downloadable_AP_Version (16 bytes): a vendor-specific 64-bit 
field 

4.3.2.5 Resident AP (???)

4.3.2.6 Length should be 28, not 24.  (Correlation_ID)

4.3.3.1 should we note the different TLV type code -> Microsoft, not PWG.

4.3.3.2 no longer fixed length.

4.3.3.3 no longer fixed length.

5.1 Microsoft NAP attributes -- I think we need more work here.  Something 
to talk about.

5.2     " ... consider itself as non-compliant with network security." 
Needs to be SoH, not security.

6.1     "... a NAP client ..." or " ... NAP clients ..."

6.2.1   section numbers

6.3.1   ?4MS

6.3.2   "...using wither IP packet filtering ..." -> either

6.3.2.1 Network Access Server  -- add "(NAS)"

6.3.3   "NAP clients request network access via a VPN tunnel acquire 
network ..."  something missing here "... tunnel and acquire ..."  (???)

6.4     section numbers
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ids/attachments/20090622/550cddda/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ids mailing list