[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,

We have confirmation from the reviewer, and have updated http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/iodef-2.0.xsd accordingly. I'll tell the RFC Editor know that the registry actions are complete.

thanks again,
Amanda

On Wed Oct 05 22:10:52 2016, amanda.baber wrote:
> Thanks! I'll ask the reviewer to confirm that he's OK with the schema
> change.
> 
> Amanda
> 
> On Wed Oct 05 18:47:08 2016, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Good afternoon Amanda!
> >
> > I just pushed out at -26 to address one of the nits. This draft is
> > ready to go.  Sorry for the delay.  Thank you for the feedback!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1:32 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)
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > >
> >