vCard KIND:device
draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-07

[Ballot discuss]

Given that many devices today do not have a good s/w update
regime and that there are many e.g. SCADA devices that are
found to be insecure when they are connected to the Internet,
I'm not at all sure that this specification introduces no new
security issues.  I think you can fix this easily though, for
example with text like that below. Or, we can argue about it:-)

"At the time of writing many devices that might be described
using this specification have no good way to update their
software or firmware, and there are also many that are
generally insecure but are being connected to the Internet in
any case, e.g. in industrial control systems or home networks.
Publication of information about such devices (e.g. firmware
revisions and hostnames or addresses) can thus represent a
significant threat by making it more likely that an existing
vulnerability can be exploited more easily. While one would
expect that software update schemes for such devices will be
deployed in future and that the security of the devices
themselves will also improve, implementers and deployers using
this specification need to consider that vCards with device
information are very likely to be more sensitive than other
vCards for some time to come."

You might well argue that such text is unlikely to have any
good effect, and you'd have a case, but I do think we need to
say something here in any case. It'd be even better if there
were some relevant optional security mechanism that we could
require be supported or used when these vCards are being
transmitted or stored, but I'm not sure that that'd be
appropriate. (If it were appropriate, I'd be all for it.)

[Ballot comment]
I saw that IANA misunderstood how to register the new property value, and that the authors have responded to that.  This highlights the need for IANA Considerations to be careful and exact; I suggest changing Section 4 as follows, to make sure it's clear to IANA (and anyone else who reads it) later:

OLD
  The IANA is requested to add "device" to the registry of property
  values for vCard4.  In conformance with Section 10.2.6 of [RFC6350],
  the registration is as follows, where the reference is to RFCXXXX.

  Value:  device

  Purpose:  The entity represented by the vCard is a computing device
      such as an appliance, computer, or network element.

  Conformance:  This value can be used with the "KIND" property.

  Example:  See Section 3 of RFCXXXX.

NEW
  IANA is asked to add the following entry to the "vCard Property
  Values" registry table
  (http://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements#property-values):
  +----------+----------+-----------------+
  | Property | Value    | Reference      |
  +----------+----------+-----------------+
  | KIND    | device  | [RFCXXXX]      |
  +----------+----------+-----------------+

  In conformance with Section 10.2.6 of [RFC6350], the registration
  template is as follows:

  Value:  device

  Purpose:  The entity represented by the vCard is a computing device
      such as an appliance, computer, or network element.

  Conformance:  This value can be used with the "KIND" property.

  Example:  See Section 3 of RFCXXXX.

END

IANA has reviewed draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06 and has the following comments:

IANA has a question for this one.

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

In the vCard Properties subregistry of the vCard Elements registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/vcard-elements.xml

a new vCard Property is to be registered as follows:

Namespace: [ none specified ]
Propoerty: DEVICE
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Section 3

Currently the vCard Properties registry is maintained through expert review as defined in RFC 5226.

IANA Question -> has the document been reviewed by the vCard Properties registry expert?

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard KIND:device) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'vCard KIND:device'
  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 2012-12-26. 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 defines a value of "device" for the vCard KIND property
  so that the vCard format can be used to represent computing devices
  such as appliances, computers, or network elements (e.g., a server,
  router, switch, printer, sensor, or phone).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device/ballot/


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

Write-up for draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-03

(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?

Proposed Standard.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document defines a value of "device" for the vCard KIND property
so that the vCard format can be used to represent computing devices
such as appliances, computers, or network elements (e.g., a server,
router, switch, printer, sensor, or phone).

Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

This document is an individual submission, however it has been
discussed and reviewed on the VCARDDAV Working Group mailing list.
There was detailed discussion of the "device" KIND along with the
"application" KIND (already published as RFC 6473).

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?

An informal last call was issued on the VCARDDAV Working Group mailing
list. Some comments were received and the draft updated accordingly.
The required expert review was requested and approval received via the
mailing list.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?
 
Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo
AD: Pete Resnick

(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 have reviewed this document and have found no nits or issues.

(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.

No additional reviews required.

(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 interested community 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.

Authors have confirmed compliance with BCP's 78 & 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

There are no IPR disclosures filed for this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

Comments from several participants in the VCARDDAV Working Group have been
received and acted on promptly. Also, the concept of the new "device" KIND was
discussed during the work on the "application" KIND (already published as
RFC 6473), since it is similar in nature.

(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.)

There has not been any discontent voiced by anyone.

(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.

No ID nits.

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

As per RFC 6350, vCard property values require approval of a designated
expert. Such approval has been received fromt he designated expert.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

No impact on other RFCs.

(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).

The IANA section is correct.

(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.

No registry being setup.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language is used. I did verify the XML example as correct.