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

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    mile mailing list <mile@ietf.org>,
    mile chair <mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Guidelines and Template for Defining Extensions to IODEF' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mile-template-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines and Template for Defining Extensions to IODEF'
  (draft-ietf-mile-template-05.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-template/

Ballot Text

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

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

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

Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty
Responsible AD: Sean Turner

RFC Editor Note