As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
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
Standards Track RFC is requested, and this is indicated in the title page
header.
IODEF is defined in 2007 as a standard track RFC in RFC 5070, and this
document is an important update that relects the needed changes in present
days. Moreover, this document works as the core of the MILE techniques
studied in the MILE WG, and many other works are based on IODEF. Therefore,
the WG believes this document should be a standards track 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
Technical Summary
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a
data representation for security incident reports and cyber
indicators commonly exchanged by operational security teams for
mitigation and watch and warning. This document describes an updated
information model for the IODEF and provides an associated data model
specified with XML Schema. This new information and data model
obsoletes [RFC5070]
Working Group Summary
This document updates IODEF version 1, and it is not backward compatible.
The document can describe wider range of information regarding incident and
its hints than previous version, while it still allows users to describe
information in a simple manner. The document received extensive review from
the WG, which refined the output of the document. The discussion was
structured and managed using the issue tracker.
Document Quality
Regarding the implementation, we already have a running implementation, i.e.,
EMC/RSA RID agent, which is described in draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-06
draft. More over, several organizations are willing to impelement a tool
compatible with this IODEF-bis draft. Regarding the document: the
acknowledgment section of this draft is appropriately made to acknowledge the
contributions during the review phase.
Personnel
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
the IESG.
I believe this document is ready for publication.
The initial version of this draft was proposed on May 5, 2013.
54 issues are discussed, and these are managed and summarized at the issue
tracker. Each of the issuue were closed based on discussion in the WG.
Please see the issue tracker on how each issue was discussed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed
No. I believe 3 years of review using the issue tracker are good enough.
(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
took place.
The document has been already reviewed by experts from different areas, but
it would be always nice to have more eyes on this. Especially, reviews from
XML and application area experts are welcomed.
(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
concerns here.
The issues have been thoroughly discussed as we can see in the issue tracker.
Only the note is the backward incompatibility issue.
The WG (including I myself) thinks that it is not an issue, but it could
worth mentioning.
(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.
Yes, the author has declared that "all IPR disclosures have been made."
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(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 three year discussion of this draft, ideas were discussed in the WG
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.)
No.
(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
thorough.
The editor provided revised
version(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-19.txt) in order
to cope with idnits warnings. This version still contains minor nits, but
the editors will reflect them when coping with IESG comments or RFC-editor.
In the abstract,
Current: [RFC 5070]
-> New: RFC 5070
In Section 3.29.6
Current: Invalid algebraic expressions while valid XML, MUST not be specified.
-> New: Invalid algebraic expressions while valid XML, MUST NOT be specified.
(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 23 normative references and 9 informative references.
(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.
This document refers to an information RFC, i.e., RFC 2781 titled "UTF-16,
an encoding of ISO 10646." I believe this downward normative reference is
within the scope of the allowed exceptions described in Section 2 of RFC
3967.
(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.
This document supersedes the RFC 5070.
This is described properly in the abstract and Section 1.3.
(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).
These registries should be mentioned in Section 10.2
"PostalAddress-type"
"TimeImpact-metric"
These registries should be mentioned prior to Section 10.2
"TimeImpact-metrics" (I guess it is just a typo. It should be
"TimeImpact-metric" "Confidence-rating" (Please review the sentences in
Section 3.12.5, or get rid of this registry.)
(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.
The review requires certain level of knowledge on incident response operations.
Therefore, CSIRT-related people are desirable to be delegated as the IANA
Experts. In addition, participants to MILE, SACM, DOTS are also knowledgeable
enough to be able to conduct the review.
(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.
The examples and schema of IODEF version 2, which are mentioned in the
document, are checked using XML validators (i.e., MSV and XMLspy).