-
Type: Bug
-
Status: New
-
Priority: Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: Open Command and Control (OpenC2) Profile for Stateless Packet Filtering Version 1.0
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:
Technical
-
Proposal:
Even allowing for my being unfamiliar with the spec., the following reads oddly:
"The ‘allow ip_connection’ command is required for openc2 producers implementing the SLPF.
If the ‘allow ip_addr’ target is not implemented, then SLPF consumers MUST implement the ‘allow ip-connection’ command. Otherwise it is OPTIONAL."
The problem is a grammatical one. I can't decide if it is the reference of "otherwise" (what's the condition?) or what is the reference of "it?"
I thought you had saved me in 2.3.1.2 where you wrote:
"If the ‘allow ip_connection’ target is not implemented, then SLPF consumers MUST implement the ‘allow ip_addr’ command. Otherwise the ‘allow ip-addr’ command is OPTIONAL."
Ok, that clearer but very poorly stated. So fix the first one but let's think of a better way to say the clearer requirement in 2.3.1.2.
Suggest:
If SLPF consumer implements allow ip_connection, allow ip_addr is OPTIONAL
if SLPF consumer does not implement ip_connection, allow ip_addrs is REQUIRED
Longer but trying to say it short leaves it confusing.