Hi, Peter,
One minor point, inline...
On May 21, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hm. The document does indeed assume that extensions to IODEF are
defined in Internet-Drafts, that extension namespaces will be
registered with IANA, and that those namespaces be of the described
form; it makes these assumptions because that is the intent of the
document. Whether that's "universal" or not could be an open
question, perhaps, but the intent is to specify a more restrictive
method of extension than that in 5070 in the interests of
consistency. So, yes, it's an informational document, they're just
helpful suggestions, but we would hope they'd be followed, and the
document is written assuming that they will...
As mentioned, I happen to be working on some IODEF extensions that are
specific to the XMPP community. Is it expected that I work on the
relevant spec in the MILE WG, in the XMPP WG, or (as I'm doing right
now) at the XMPP Standards Foundation? IMHO, doing this work at the XSF
makes the most sense because that's where most of the XMPP developers
and operators are active. Seeking a sanity check on this work from the
MILE WG does seem reasonable, though (once it's ready for review).
This is IMO the right way to go. During the creation of this document, we
envisioned in most cases that work to extend IODEF would not have any other
"natural" home, and as such would be done within the IETF in the MILE WG; this
assumption is probably apparent in the document.
In cases where the work _does_ have a natural home (the application of IODEF to
XMPP-specific events is a perfect example), it definitely makes sense to do
work there in possible consultation with the MILE WG.
Indeed, for such cases, the IODEF expert review on IODEF extension schemas
specified by draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg would be a final backstop to ensure
that specified extensions are consistent with IODEF.
Best regards,
Brian (as author, draft-ietf-mile-template)