Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS
draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-09

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 lead to a
  discussion with the authors.  They seem to have settled on agreed
  changes to the document, but the changes have not been made yet.

[Ballot comment]
First, thank you for addressing the comments that Julian Reschke provided on behalf of the Apps Directorate.

Section 3 states:

  RID systems MAY be configurable to listen on
  ports other than the well-known port; this configuration is out of
  band and out of scope for this specification.

and:

  When performing RID callback, a responding system MUST connect to the
  host at the network-layer address from which the original request was
  sent; there is no mechanism in RID for redirected callback.  This
  callback SHOULD use TCP port 4590 unless configured out of band to
  use a different port.

What does it mean to configure a RID system out of band? As far as I can see there is no *in-band* configuration method (i.e., a RID system cannot be configured via RID messages), so the use of "out of band" here is confusing. I suggest removing this terminology in both instances.

The ABNF reference is old; please change [RFC2234] to [RFC5234].

Section 3 states:

  RID systems MUST use TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346] or higher with mutual
  authentication for confidentiality, identification, and
  authentication, as in [RFC2818], when transporting RID messages over
  HTTPS.

The phrase "as in [RFC2818]" makes it sound as if the rules specified in RFC 2818 are the kind of rules that might be used, not that those rules must be followed. If the intent is that the identity-checking rules in RFC 2818 always apply to RID systems, I suggest changing the text to:

  RID systems MUST use TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346] or higher with mutual
  authentication for confidentiality, identification, and authentication when
  transporting RID messages over HTTPS.  RID systems MUST follow the
  rules specified in [RFC2818] regarding verification of endpoint identities.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 lead to a
  discussion with the authors.  They seem to have settled on agreed
  changes to the document, but the changes have not been made yet.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/ TLS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight
Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document:
- 'Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/
  TLS'
  as a 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 2012-01-17. 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


  The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a
  common XML format for document exchange, and Realtime Internetwork
  Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the
  cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of
  network operators and enterprises.  This document specifies a
  transport protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages
  over HTTP/TLS.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis/


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

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty
Review: The document has been reviewed and I believe it is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, this document is an updated version of RFC6046. The technical review in the last IESG process was extremely positive, stating this should be an example for similar documents. Nits and technical clarifications were noted and addressed during this last call process. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been preformed.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
No concerns.

(1.e) 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?
This document has WG consensus.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No discontent has been stated on this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
Yes, this has been addressed.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
Yes, the IANA section remains the same as RFC6046 and is correct, addressing all appropriate areas.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
N/A. Technical reviews have taken place.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

Technical Summary
This document provides the HTTP/TLS transport specification for Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) messaging defined in RFC6045-bis. This document updates RFC6046.

Working Group Summary
The working group formally adopted this draft as a working group item in Taipei. There has been clear recognition that this document is needed to provide the transport for RFC6045-bis (also a WG item). Working group members showed their support for this document in the review process through reviews and comments sent to the mailing list. All suggested changes are included in the current version.

Document Quality
There are existing implementations and new ones in development based on the updated requirements. Increasing interest in this protocol has been demonstrated by computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) and information sharing groups (industry and regionally focused) to automate the exchange of cyber security information exchange. The ITU-T also has interest in referencing this document in their suite of protocols in Study Group 17, question 4. Small changes were recommended and made during the working group last call. There are no outstanding technical concerns with this document. The technical reviews provided by David Black and SM@resistor.net provided small changes that are reflected in the current version.