[mile] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I noted the exact same point as Ben regarding the intended status.
This is really a BCP, right? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
However, I believe the combination of BCP and RFC2119 language is fine.
If I take a single sentence, as an example:

   An IODEF document MUST include
   at least an Incident class, an xml:lang attribute that defines the
   supported language an the IODEF version attribute.

Is this a specification coming from RFC 7970 (which I could not find, by
browsing for a few minutes)? Or is this is a new specification of this "BCP"?

See also Qin's OPS DIR feedback.