As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic) Why
is this the proper type of RFC Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header
Informational RFC is requested, and this is indicated in the title page
header. This draft does not propose any common interfaces, but it supports
the implementation of IODEF-related tools. The WG believes that this falls
within the scope of informational RFC.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the Action announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections
This document is a collection of implementation reports from vendors,
consortiums, and researchers who have implemented one or more of the
standards published from the IETF INCident Handling (INCH) and
Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) working groups.
Working Group Summary
The content of this doument has evolved following the development of
RFC5070-bis draft. The rough consensus on this draft was to finalize this
draft just after the content of RFC5070-bis draft is finalized. The
RFC5070-bis draft has already completed the WGLC by April, thus the WG agreed
to proceed toward the publication of this document.
This document lists lots of implementation instances.
The sentences for each implementation instance were reviewed by the original
Takeshi Takahashi is the Document Shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty is the
Responsible Area Director
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
I believe this document is ready for publication.
The initial version of this draft was proposed on Feb, 2014.
Only the major change the document has experienced is the inclusion of the
sentences on implementation experience at the end of 2014. Until that time,
the document focused on listing existing implementation, but after that, it
included some implementation tips earned from real implementation
experiences. Until now, the document was reviewed by the WG, and no
objection were raised; the WG has been acknowledging their efforts in each
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed
The purpose of this document is evangelizing the efforts of RFC 5070-related
activities. For this purpose, the depth or breadth of the reviews were
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization If so, describe the review that
The document has been already reviewed by experts from different areas, but
it would be always nice to have more eyes on this.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director andor the
IESG should be aware of For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
No serious issue is found.
Only the concern I had was the distinction between this draft and the IODEF
Usage Guidance draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance/), but the
distinction is currently clear.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Chris Inacio and Daisuke Miyamoto have declared that this draft has no
IPR-related issues so long as they know.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it
During two year discussion of this draft, the list of implementations in
this document was expanded in a constructive manner. The MILE WG is rather
small, and that helped the WG as a whole to understand and agree with it.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
This document is ID-nits friendly.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not have any issue that require any external formal
review, such as MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative
This document has 11 informative references, and no normative reverences are
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion
Such normative reference does not exist in this document.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This document includes no request to IANA, and this is correct.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
There exist no such registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
There is no such section in this document.