[mile] [IANA #921487] Protocol Action: 'The Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-25.txt)

["Amanda Baber via RT" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

This document is currently stuck with us. We need you to let us know whether you want us to make changes now or wait to hear from the RFC Editor (if you still want to make changes by then) during AUTH48. 

If you don't want to make any changes now, can we tell the RFC Editor the registry actions are complete?

thanks,
Amanda 

On Mon Aug 22 22:47:11 2016, amanda.baber wrote:
> Hi Roman,
> 
> The reviewer writes, "Fixing schemaLocation in a spec makes the spec
> harder to consume. Implementations that want local copies to be used
> have to modify the doc to use it."
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Mon Aug 22 20:24:38 2016, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Good afternoon Amanda!
> >
> > Coming back from vacation.
> >
> > Ack on this email and thank you for the review!
> >
> > (1) Let me check on the TimeZone issue.  This was a requested change
> > from IESG review.
> >
> > (2) Could the reviewer share a bit more context on "schemaLocation"
> > not being a good idea.  Is there a better way?
> >
> > I'd prefer to change now rather than AUTH48 if there is anything to
> > do.
> >
> > Roman
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:09 PM
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [IANA #921487] Protocol Action: 'The Incident Object
> > > Description
> > > Exchange Format v2' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-
> > > bis-
> > > 25.txt)
> > >
> > > Dear Roman,
> > >
> > > The actions for this document are complete. The designated expert
> > > for
> > > the
> > > XML registries, however, has comments:
> > >
> > > "It looks good. Two nits:
> > >
> > > schemaLocation attributes are a bad idea the definition of TimeZone
> > > allows
> > > for seconds, which is unnecessary (I think)"
> > >
> > > If you want to make changes during AUTH48, the RFC Editor will
> > > contact us
> > > and tell us which updates to make. Alternatively, if you want to
> > > make
> > > changes now, just let us know.
> > >
> > > Please review the actions below and let us know whether we've
> > > completed
> > > them correctly. When we receive your confirmation, we'll tell the
> > > RFC
> > > Editor
> > > the IANA actions are complete.
> > >
> > > ACTION 1:
> > >
> > > IANA has added the following entry to the IETF XML ns registry:
> > >
> > > iodef-2.0
> > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/iodef-2.0.txt
> > > [RFC-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-25]
> > >
> > > Please see
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry
> > >
> > >
> > > ACTION 2:
> > >
> > > IANA has added the following entry to the IESG XML schema registry:
> > >
> > > iodef-2.0
> > > urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-2.0
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/iodef-2.0.xsd
> > > [RFC-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-25]
> > >
> > > Please see
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry
> > >
> > >
> > > ACTION 3:
> > >
> > > IANA has created 34 registries under the "Incident Object
> > > Description
> > > Exchange Format v2 (IODEF)" heading at
> > >
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/iodef2
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we tell the RFC Editor these are complete?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Amanda Baber
> > > IANA Lead Specialist
> > > ICANN
> >