Subject: [mile] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:28:15 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Incident Object Description Exchange Format Usage Guidance
        Authors         : Panos Kampanakis
                          Mio Suzuki
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2017-09-07

Abstract:
   The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) v2 (RFC7970)
   defines a data representation that provides a framework for sharing
   information about computer security incidents commonly exchanged by
   Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) .  Since the IODEF
   model includes a wealth of available options that can be used to
   describe a security incident or issue, it can be challenging for
   security practitioners to develop tools that leverage IODEF for
   incident sharing.  This document provides guidelines for IODEF
   implementers.  It addresses how common security indicators can be
   represented in IODEF and use-cases of how IODEF is being used.  This
   document aims to make IODEF's adoption by vendors easier and
   encourage faster and wider adoption of the model by CSIRTs around the
   world.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:39:55 +0000

This submission addresses all reviews from the IESG Last call.

Thank you to all the reviewers. 

We updated normative language to have an Informational draft tones. 
We fixed figures and the minimal class figures. 
We fixed multiple nits, clarifications and text issues found by reviewers.
We also addressed the id-nits nits that made sense except for the ones that complain about long lines.

The draft should be ready now. 

Please let us know if there are more nits that need addressing. 

Regards,
Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 1:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-11.txt

Abstract:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:55:10 -0400

Thank you, Panos.

I'll take a look through the document.  Some on the IESG felt this
should be a BCP and it didn't have that feel to me, but when I read it
again, I'll consider this and get back to you.  If others on the IESG
have shifted their opinion, please do let me know.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:36:45 -0400

Hello,

I read the draft again and think it reads very well now, thank you for
your work on it Panos.  The normative language has been removed as
requested.  I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this should go
forward as informational or as a BCP.  The IESG hasn't weighed in any
further (but are of course welcome to do so), do the chairs have a
strong opinion here?

Another last call would be required if it were to be switched to a
BCP, but that's not too big of a deal if it is the preferred path
forward.  I'm happy to have a call with the chairs and author if it's
helpful to walk through this so we can decide on the go forward plan.
We can coordinate that without the full list copied on this message
and just report back.

Thank you,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:36:13 -0400

Hello,

After review with the authors and chairs, we decided this should stay
as informational.  If it were BCP, they felt the draft would have to
be more prescriptive and would have to more exhaustively make
recommendations on classes commonly used and how that should happen.

Thanks again for your reviews and input to make this a better draft.
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen