On 5/16/12 3:53 PM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight > Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document: > - 'Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF' > <draft-ietf-mile-template-04.txt> as Informational RFC Although this document does no harm, I have my doubts that the topic warrants publication of an RFC (and I say that as someone who is defining some IODEF extensions for use on the XMPP network [1]). Why would a simple wiki page [2] not suffice? If we decide than an RFC is needed, I have some more actionable feedback... 1. The document could be construed as assuming that IODEF extensions will all be defined in Internet-Drafts, that extension namespaces will be registered with IANA, and even that namespaces will be of the form 'urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-*'. It might be helpful to clarify the intended applicability of this document, i.e., merely as helpful suggestions for authors of Internet-Drafts, not truly as universally applicable guidelines for defining IODEF extensions. 2. Why is RFC 6545 a normative reference? 3. Given the many comments provided by Martin Dürst, mentioning his AppsDir review in the Acknowledgements seems appropriate. 4. Some of the text in the appendix seems needlessly detailed (e.g., saying that each extension needs to be specified in a subsection, or the recommendation to include a UML diagram). 5. Why is the list of datatypes in appendix A.4.1 copied from RFC 5070? A simple reference would do. (I almost said the same about the list in Section 3, but that one is marginally useful.) 6. Some of the information in this document repeats information from the RFC style guide and other sources; why? Peter [1] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0268.html [2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mile/trac/wiki