[mile] Documents for consideration as MILE WG items

Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Wed, 26 October 2011 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 A73AD21F84D2 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 I-bTSzYTLu+o for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0600421F84CC for <mile@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9012D930B for <mile@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:23:19 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UwvqLf6GK3dp for <mile@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:23:19 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cust-integra-121-161.antanet.ch [80.75.121.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DA62D9304 for <mile@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:23:19 +0200 (MEST)
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:23:18 +0200
Message-Id: <C0A601C7-548D-4440-97C0-A169DF73EEB4@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
To: mile@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [mile] Documents for consideration as MILE WG items
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, 26 Oct 2011 07:23:32 -0000

Greetings, all, and welcome to the MILE working group!

As a contributor, I'd like to put forward three documents for consideration as working group items under the initial charter; these are all relatively lightweight, and I believe should be easy to come to agreement on.


1. For * An informational template for extensions to IODEF:

"Guidelines for Extensions to IODEF for Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange"
       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-mile-template 

This is an informational document primarily intended to speed the work of the MILE WG itself. It contains an Internet-Draft template for IODEF extensions.


2. For * A Standards Track document for IODEF Extensions in IANA XML Registry:

"Expert Review for IODEF Extensions in IANA XML Registry"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-mile-iodef-xmlreg

This is a housekeeping and process document, which specifies a change to IODEF-related XML schema registrations in order to ensure an expert review of those schemas. It's really short; indeed, I'll quote the important part of the document here:

   Changes to the XML Schema registry for schema names beginning with
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef" are subject to an additional IODEF
   Expert Review [RFC5226].

   The IODEF expert(s) for these reviews will be designated by the IETF
   Security Area Directors.


3. For * A Standards Track document specifying the transport for RID:

"Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-mile-rfc6046-bis

This document is a straight update of RFC6046, making minor editorial changes and updating its status to Standards Track; there are no substantive technical changes from the HTTP-based protocol specified in RFC6046.


As a contributor, I'd appreciate comments to the list on these documents by 2 November, stating whether you support the documents for adoption as WG items, and whether you would be willing to review them. (Okay, if you've read this message this far, you've essentially already reviewed mile-iodef-xmlreg, but the other two could use a critical eye.)

After 2 November, Kathleen will hold a consensus call on these documents.

Many thanks, and best regards,

Brian