Subject: [mile] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:11:32 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09: 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-implementreport/

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

Nevile Brownlee performed the opsdir review. I don't think the draft is
entirely ready to publish and I hope some editing will ensue but I that
in the hands of shepherd, and responsible AD.

Hi all:

I have performed an Operations Directorate review of
   draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09

  "This document is a collection of implementation reports from vendors,
   consortiums, and researchers who have implemented one or more of the
   standards published from the IETF INCident Handling (INCH) and
   Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) working groups."

This draft is a collection of information about Security Incident
reporting protocols, and the implementation of systems that use them
to share such information.  It is simply a collection of information,
it makes no attempt to compare the various standards or implementations.
As such, it will be of interest to Network Operators who wish to collect
and share such data.

Operationally, Operators would need to decide which incident data
collection group they want to be part of, that choice will strongly
influence their choice of reporting protocol and applications to
gather and distribute the data.

The draft seems (to me) to need quite a bit of copy-editing, I list
a few changes and suggestions below ...

S1  RFC5070-bis.  Is there an Internet Draft about this, or some other
      document you could reference?  It's mentioned again in section
      3.1, but there's nothing about it in the References section.

S2.1  s/provides a solutions/provides solutions/
S2.3  s/IODEF formatted-message to/IODEF formatted-messages to/
      s/by REN-ISAC are designed/by REN-ISAC is designed/

S3.2  "IODEF-SCI is the IETF draft"  there's no reference to such a
      draft, there should be.
      "It also equips the interface ..."  Exactly what does this mean?

S4.2.2 s/prevents from accidentally/prevents accidentally/
       s/ensure it is a well formed format/
         ensure it is well formed/

S5.1  "General availability of Threat Central will
       be in 2014."
      It's now well into 2016 - this needs updating!

Overall, I think the material in this draft is interesting, but it
needs quite a bit of tidying/updating to get it ready for publishing.

Cheers, Nevil

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
 Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
 FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir