IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mile] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> (Guidelines for DefiningExtensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 30 May 2012 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8582221F861C; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3UNwY+R0dvr; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DFE21F8625; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAB4Pxk/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEtA2BB4IXAQEBAQMSHgo0CwwEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwHBAEGAUUJCAEBBBMIGodpC5wTnSGLBYIsgjZgA5YnhGKKAoJi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,685,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="350038127"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2012 08:15:05 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2012 08:14:31 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:16:52 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407A503C2@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120516215321.9671.39664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> (Guidelines for DefiningExtensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: Ac0zrndzehc1YPfHShOUxclriX6j+AKrpZyg
References: <20120516215321.9671.39664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 May 2012 05:35:06 -0700
Cc: mile@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mile] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> (Guidelines for DefiningExtensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:17:06 -0000

Hi, 

The inclusion of the template as an Appendix in the document is
confusing - right now A.1 through A.7 define sections in the future
I-Ds, while A.8 and A.9 describe appendices in the future I-D. This
document has two sections each titled Appendix A and Appendix B.
Moreover, this inclusion has the disadvantage that if changes or updates
need to be brought up for reasons whatsoever, a new RFC needs to be
written. Did the author and the WG considered adopting the approach
taken by RFC 5249 which located the templates under the IETF tools web
pages and only referred them from the RFC? 

Regards,

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:53 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: mile@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> (Guidelines for
> DefiningExtensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight
> Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document:
> - 'Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF'
>   <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> 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 provides guidelines for extensions to IODEF [RFC5070]
>    for exchange of incident management data, and contains a template
> for
>    Internet-Drafts describing those extensions, in order to ease the
>    work and improve the quality of extension descriptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-template/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-template/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email