Expert Review for Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) Extensions in IANA XML Registry
RFC 6685

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Sean Turner) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-05)
No email
send info
Section 1, Introduction
IODEF extensions via class extension through AdditionalData and
   RecordItem elements, as per section 5.2 of [RFC5070], generally
   register their namespaces and schemas with the IANA XML Namespace
   registry at ...

=> remove "generally"

- There is one nit catched by the nit checker:

=> The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5070, but
the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-05)
No email
send info
  Please consider the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review by
  Suresh Krishnan on 5-Jun-2012.  The review can be found here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07483.html

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-05)
No email
send info
Consider "designated by the IESG" instead of "designated by the IETF Security Area Directors."

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2012-06-07)
No email
send info
This document defines no protocol, does not say how to implement a protocol, and does not have anything to do with a protocol except for information about how an IANA registry is to be used. This should be BCP.