search

sacmwg / draft-ietf-sacm-terminology

SACM terminology aligned with best practice definitions, standard references, and terminology definitions of other work groups
Other
2 stars 2 forks source link

Update reference to vulnerability scenario #38

Closed adammontville closed 6 years ago

adammontville commented 7 years ago

The draft appears to presently say: "A prominent instance of the assessment workflow is illustrated in the Vulnerability Assessment Scenario [I-D.ietf-sacm-vuln-scenario]." The reference should point to the wiki or use another description.

henkbirkholz commented 7 years ago

I am hesitant to favor a wiki page (which can go away or change drastically in its semantic context and therefore is more ephemeral) in contrast to an I-D, which might expire, but will always be an available immutable resource.

What does the group think?

jarrettlu commented 7 years ago

Hi Adam,

I also favor referencing a draft, or an alternate stable document, rather than a wiki page. What problem do you see and try to address?

Jarrett

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Henk Birkholz notifications@github.com wrote:

I am hesitant to favor a wiki page (which can go away or change drastically in its semantic context and therefore is more ephemeral) in contrast to an I-D, which might expire, but will always be an available immutable resource.

What does the group think?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/38#issuecomment-315743936, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMaunFJLtSxwaxp_qjyZKpUfCilNTmgtks5sO1YIgaJpZM4OZ0-T .

adammontville commented 7 years ago

The vulnerability draft will not progress. We decided to go to a wiki. If you want to reference a draft that has, or will eventually, expire that's up to you. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:20 PM jarrettlu notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Adam,

I also favor referencing a draft, or an alternate stable document, rather than a wiki page. What problem do you see and try to address?

Jarrett

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Henk Birkholz notifications@github.com wrote:

I am hesitant to favor a wiki page (which can go away or change drastically in its semantic context and therefore is more ephemeral) in contrast to an I-D, which might expire, but will always be an available immutable resource.

What does the group think?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/38#issuecomment-315743936 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMaunFJLtSxwaxp_qjyZKpUfCilNTmgtks5sO1YIgaJpZM4OZ0-T

.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/38#issuecomment-315871087, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFSLESpHwyoLZ_O7Npv1NM5jaY3x_Dkks5sO8IpgaJpZM4OZ0-T .