Expert Review for Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) Extensions in IANA XML Registry
draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
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. Why is this going on the standards track? This should either be Informational, or more likely BCP.

[Ballot comment]

  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

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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"

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01 and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is
a single IANA action which must be completed.

The registration procedures for a subset of the IANA XML namespace
registry are to be changed. IANA understands that the registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

is to have its registration procedures changed as follows:

Schema names beginning with "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef" are
subject to an additional IODEF Expert Review, as defined by
RFC 5226, for IODEF-correctness and -appropriateness.

The IODEF expert(s) for these reviews will be designated by
the IETF Security Area Directors.

IANA understands that this is the only IANA action required by the approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Expert Review for IODEF Extensions in IANA XML Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight
Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document:
- 'Expert Review for IODEF Extensions in IANA XML Registry'
  as Proposed Standard

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 specifies restrictions on additions to the subset of
  the IANA XML Namespace and Schema registries, to require Expert
  Review for extensions to IODEF.




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

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


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

This document is at -01, but it was originally part of draft-ietf-mile-template.  I made them split out the IANA considerations from the templates draft because the updated IANA considerations was the only part of the templates draft that needed to be standards track.  This one needs to be standards track to update RFC 5070.

Also note the answer to #18 in the proto write-up.  I'll add something similar in the IANA considerations section in the Ballot write-up.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Standards Track, Updates RFC5070.

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It provides an update to the IANA XML Registry for IODEF extensions and
IODEF is standards track.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

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

'Expert Review for IODEF Extensions in IANA XML Registry'
(draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01.txt) specifies restrictions on
additions to the subset of the IANA XML Namespace and Schema registries,
to require Expert Review for extensions to the Incident Object
Description Exchange Format (IODEF).  IODEF is specified in RFC5070.

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?

No.  The document requires and expert review on IODEF extensions, very
straightforward from the WG perspective.

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?

Yes, there are several implementations of RFC5070 and extensions.  This
document does not specify anything that requires implementation, just
requires an expert review on any new extensions.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?          Kathleen Moriarty
Who is the Responsible Area Director?  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.

I read through the document, and am also very familiar with IODEF, so I
had the necessary context.  I looked through the idnits report and see
the finding that RFC5070 is not mentioned.  IODEF is specified in
RFC5070, so this could be added after the IODEF reference if needed.  It
would be fine to do this in Auth48.

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

No concerns.

(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 WG reviewed this in the first WGLC and again after it was separated
out from the template document in a second last call.  In the second
last call, I reviewed the document as did the Security AD.  All comments
were 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?

Solid consensus.  The draft is straightforward.

(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.

The idnits showed RFC5070 was not listed in the abstract.  The abstract
does mention IODEF, so this reference could easily be added following
IODEF as that is RFC5070.

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

N/A.

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

There are only normative 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?

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.

It updates RFC5070.  It does not change the status of RFC5070 as the
update is just to the IANA section to require an expert review on any
extensions to RFC5070.

(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).

Confirmed, the IANA section looks good.  It has been reviewed by the
document shepherd, the Security AD, and working group members very
familiar with IANA requirements.

(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 draft references an existing registry, adding a requirement for an
expert review.  The Security AD is responsible to assign an expert for
the review.  If the MILE WG is active at the time the request is made,
the expert may be indentified in MILE.

The registry is the IANA XML Registry and the request is to perform an
IODEF Expert Review [RFC5226] on schemas with names beginning with
'urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef',

NOTE: There's no expectation that this expert will be an XML expert.
This will mean there are two designated experts: one for the XML schema
and one for the IODEF.  We have had discussions with IANA about this and
it seems like this will be doable.

(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 XML or other code.  The registry location, URL, and
namespaces were verified.