Guidelines and Template for Defining Extensions to the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
draft-ietf-mile-template-05

[Ballot discuss]
In a Last-Call discussion, the author agreed with a comment made by Peter Saint-Andre that the reference to RFC6545 should be informational, but that change has not yet been made.

It should be made more obvious that the examples in Appendix B are examples, and not actual registrations. Using a real protocol for the example is hazardous. Could you replace the first example (ENUM) with something clearly not real? (btw, RFC6116 defines e164.arpa.)

Can you provide a reference into the existing IODEF specifications for where the kind of extension discussed in item 3 of section 3 is anticipated?

[Ballot comment]
Peter's Last-Call comments also included some editorial suggestions. I would like to amplify his first comment on being very clear when the use of these templates (and the guidance around the selection of a namespace value)  are appropriate.

[Ballot discuss]
Extending on Adrian's point: I would be glad if you discussed with the Ops ADs the need to include a
section in Extensons I-Ds covering Manageability Considerations for the
extensions.

While I understand that not all extensions have management and operational considerations, a way forward could be a new manageability section that would contain something such as:
If an extension implies some operational and management considerations such as defined in RFC5706 appendix A, then those considerations must be covered in this section"

[Ballot comment]
- shouldn't you reference draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01?
- section 2 "A non-exhaustive list of good candidate extensions to IODEF includes:"
This sentence really looks like you're proposing new work. Could you change it to something such as "a few examples ..."
-  class extension through AdditionalData and RecordItem elements,
      as per section 5.2 of [RFC5070]
s/and/or
- section A.6 and A.7. It seems that you redo the RFC editor document here. This is confusing.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document I have no objeciton to its publication.

Here are a few minor and non-blocking Comments that I would appreciate you reading before publication is complete.

---
You will need to remove the citaiotn notation ([ ]) from the Abstract.
--
You should clean up the unused reference to RFC 3339.
---
I would be glad if you discussed with the Ops ADs the need to include a
section in Extensons I-Ds covering Manageability Considerations for the
extensions.
---
I found the nesting of appendixes a little perturbing, but it is
probably easy enough to grok.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mile-template-04 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

Note: We acknowledge that in the appendix there is a template to be used for future requests for IODEF Extensions.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight
Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-05-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides guidelines for extensions to IODEF [RFC5070]
  for exchange of incident management data, and contains a template for
  Internet-Drafts describing those extensions, in order to ease the
  work and improve the quality of extension descriptions.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-template/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-template/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The first couple of versions of this draft were marked as BCP.  When it came to me I asked why.  Turns out the only reason was the IANA considerations, which updates RFC 5070.  The rest of the document was purely informational.  I made them split out the IANA registry updates and draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg was born.

(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, Yes.

(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 'Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF' document provides
guidelines for extensions to IODEF
[RFC5070] for exchange of incident
management data. The document contains a template for Internet-Drafts
describing those extensions to provide a consistent approach for
extensions in order to assist developers and implementers, while
improving the quality of extension descriptions.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

Consensus was strong. This draft went through WG last call twice as the
first iteration it was combined with another draft. The second round
received very few comments as the first had many voice support for the
work. The template has been very helpful to those writing new drafts
and should be helpful to implementers in the future having extensions in
a common format and covering the specified areas.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

This is a template to format extensions to IODEF and the template has
been used 3 times now with success. The Apps area review in the first
last call was very helpful already. I don't think additional special
reviews are necessary. A review from the Apps area to ensure all
concerns were addressed could be useful, I believe they have all been
addressed.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?

Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty
Responsible AD: Sean Turner

(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.

The review was published to the mailing list during the last call. All
comments were addressed and none of the questions raised were major.
The AD review comments were also addressed in the current version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns, the draft is straightforward.

(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.

There was an Apps area review during the first last call and comments
were addressed. No special review should be required as this is a
template. An Apps area review could be helpful to ensure all concerns
were addressed, I believe they all have been addressed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or 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.

No Concerns.

(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.

(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?

Strong consensus.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There is a nit that shows up saying RFC3339 is referenced, but not used.
The reference is used in the appendix, line 354. There are no nits of
concern.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The method for extending IODEF is defined in RFC5070, this just
establishes a common template for creating those extensions for consistency.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

No.

(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).

N/A. This is covered in RFC5070 and the xmlreg draft. This just
provides a template for extension documents.

(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.

N/A.

(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.

I did review the UML descriptions as well as the content from RFC5070
and did not find any issues.