[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         C. Inacio
Request for Comments: 8134                                           CMU
Category: Informational                                      D. Miyamoto
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   UTokyo
                                                                May 2017

 Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) Implementation Report


   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.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Consortiums and Information Sharing and Analysis Centers
       (ISACs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Anti-Phishing Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Advanced Cyber Defence Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Research and Education Networking Information Sharing and
           Analysis Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Open Source Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  EMC/RSA RID Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  NICT IODEF-SCI implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  n6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Vendor Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Deep Secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  IncMan Suite, DFLabs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Surevine Proof of Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  MANTIS Cyber-Intelligence Management Framework  . . . . .   8
   5.  Vendors with Planned Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Threat Central, HP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  DAEDALUS, NICT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Other Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Collaborative Incident Management System  . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Automated Incident Reporting - AirCERT  . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  US Department of Energy CyberFed  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Implementation Guide  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Code Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  iodeflib  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  iodefpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.4.  Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

1.  Introduction

   This document 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,
   and 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, and that choice will
   strongly influence their choice of reporting protocol and
   applications used to gather and distribute the data.

   This document is a collection of implementation reports from vendors
   and researchers who have implemented one or more of the standards
   published from the INCH and MILE working groups.  The standards

   o  Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) v1 [RFC5070]

   o  Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) v2 [RFC7970]

   o  Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing

   o  Sharing Transaction Fraud Data [RFC5941]

   o  Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) [RFC6545]

   o  Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over
      HTTP/TLS [RFC6546]

   o  Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) Extension for
      Structured Cybersecurity Information (SCI) [RFC7203]

   The implementation reports included in this document have been
   provided by the team or product responsible for the implementations
   of the mentioned RFCs.  A more complete list of implementations,
   including open source efforts and vendor products, can also be found
   at the following location:


Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

2.  Consortiums and Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs)

2.1.  Anti-Phishing Working Group

   The Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) is one of the biggest
   coalitions against cybercrime, especially phishing.  In order to
   collect threat information in a structured format, APWG provides a
   phishing and cybercrime reporting tool that sends threat information
   to APWG by tailoring information with the IODEF format, based on RFC
   5070 [RFC5070] and RFC 5901 [RFC5901].

2.2.  Advanced Cyber Defence Centre

   The Advanced Cyber Defence Centre (ACDC) is a Europe-wide activity to
   fight against botnets.  ACDC provides solutions to mitigate on-going
   attacks and consolidates information provided by various stakeholders
   into a pool of knowledge.  Within ACDC, IODEF is one of the supported
   schemas for exchanging the information.

2.3.  Research and Education Networking Information Sharing and Analysis

   The Research and Education Networking Information Sharing and
   Analysis Center (REN-ISAC) is a private community of researchers and
   higher-education members that share threat information and employs
   IODEF formatted-messages to exchange information.

   REN-ISAC also recommends using an IODEF attachment provided with a
   notification email for processing rather than relying on parsing of
   the body text of email.  The tools provided by REN-ISAC are designed
   to handle such email.


3.  Open Source Implementations

3.1.  EMC/RSA RID Agent

   The EMC/RSA RID agent is an open source implementation of the IETF
   standards for the exchange of incident and indicator data.  The code
   has been released under an MIT license, and development will continue
   with the open source community at the GitHub site for RSA
   Intelligence Sharing:


Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   The code implements the Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
   described in RFC 6545 [RFC6545] and the Transport of RID over HTTP/
   TLS protocol described in [RFC6546].  The code supports the evolving
   Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) data model
   [RFC7970] from the work in the IETF Managed Incident Lightweight
   Exchange (MILE) working group.

3.2.  NICT IODEF-SCI implementation

   Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications
   Technology (NICT) Network Security Research Institute implemented
   open source tools for exchanging, accumulating, and locating IODEF-
   SCI [RFC7203] documents.

   Three tools are available from GitHub.  These tools assist the
   exchange of IODEF-SCI documents between parties.  IODEF-SCI [RFC7203]
   extends IODEF so that an IODEF document can embed Structured
   Cybersecurity Information (SCI).  For instance, it can embed Malware
   Metadata Exchange Format (MMDEF), Common Event Expression (CEE),
   Malware Attribute Enumeration and Characterization (MAEC) in XML, and
   Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifiers.

   The three tools are generator, exchanger, and parser.  The generator
   generates IODEF-SCI documents or appends XML to an existing IODEF
   document.  The exchanger sends the IODEF document to a specified
   correspondent node.  The parser receives, parses, and stores the
   IODEF-SCI document.  The parser also creates an interface that
   enables users to locate IODEF-SCI documents that have previously been
   received.  The code has been released under an MIT license and
   development will continue on GitHub.

   Note that users can enjoy using this software at their own risk.

   Available Online:


3.3.  n6

   n6 is a platform for processing security-related information; it was
   developed by the Poland Research and Academic Computer Network (NASK)
   Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Polska.  The n6 API provides
   a common and unified way of representing data across the different
   sources that participate in knowledge management.

   n6 exposes a REST-ful (Representational State Transfer) API over
   HTTPS with mandatory authentication via Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) client certificates to ensure confidential and trustworthy

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   communications.  Moreover, it uses an event-based data model for
   representation of all types of security information.

   Each event is represented as a JSON object with a set of mandatory
   and optional attributes. n6 also supports alternative output data
   formats for keeping compatibility with existing systems - IODEF and
   CSV - although these formats lack some of the attributes that may be
   present in the native JSON format.

   Available Online:


4.  Vendor Implementations

4.1.  Deep Secure

   Deep-Secure Guards are built to protect a trusted domain from:

   o  releasing sensitive data that does not meet the organizational
      security policy, and

   o  applications receiving badly constructed or malicious data that
      could exploit a vulnerability (known or unknown).

   Deep-Secure Guards support HTTPS and the Extensible Messaging and
   Presence Protocol (XMPP -- optimized server-to-server protocol),
   transports.  The Deep-Secure Guards support transfer of XML-based
   business content by creating a schema to translate the known good
   content to and from the intermediate format.  This means that the
   Deep-Secure Guards can be used to protect:

   o  IODEF/RID using the HTTPS transport binding [RFC6546]

   o  IODEF/RID using an XMPP binding

   o  Resource-Oriented Lightweight Indicator Exchange (ROLIE) using
      HTTPS transport binding [XEP-0268]

   o  Structured Threat Information Expression (STIX) / Trusted
      Automated Exchange of Indicator Information (TAXII) using the
      HTTPS transport binding

   Deep-Secure Guards also support the SMTP transport and perform deep
   content inspection of content including XML attachments.  The Mail
   Guard supports S/MIME, and Deep Secure is working on support for the
   upcoming PLASMA standard, which enables an information-centric policy
   enforcement of data use.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

4.2.  IncMan Suite, DFLabs

   The Incident Object Description Exchange Format, documented in RFC
   5070 [RFC5070], defines a data representation that provides a
   framework for sharing information commonly exchanged by Computer
   Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) about computer security
   incidents.  IncMan Suite implements the IODEF standard for exchanging
   details about incidents, either for exporting or importing
   activities.  This has been introduced to enhance the capabilities of
   the various CSIRTs to facilitate collaboration and sharing of useful
   experiences (sharing awareness on specific cases).

   The IODEF implementation is specified as an XML schema; therefore all
   data are stored in an XML file.  In this file, all the data of an
   incident are organized in a hierarchical structure to describe the
   various objects and their relationships.

   The IncMan Suite relies on IODEF as a transport format, which is
   composed by various classes for describing the entities that are part
   of the incident description.  For instance, the various relevant
   timestamps (detection time, start time, end time, and report time),
   the techniques used by the intruders to perpetrate the incident, the
   impact of the incident, technical and non-technical (time and
   monetary), and obviously all systems involved in the incident.

4.2.1.  Exporting Incidents

   Each incident defined in the IncMan Suite can be exported via a user
   interface feature, and it will create an XML document.  Due to the
   nature of the data processed, the IODEF extraction might be
   considered privacy sensitive by the parties exchanging the
   information or by those described by it.  For this reason, specific
   care needs to be taken in ensuring the distribution to an appropriate
   audience or third party, either during the document exchange or the
   subsequent processing.

   The XML document generated will include a description and details of
   the incident along with all the systems involved and the related
   information.  At this stage, it can be distributed for import into a
   remote system.

4.2.2.  Importing Incidents

   The IncMan Suite provides the functionality to import incidents
   stored in files and transported via IODEF-compliant XML documents.
   The importing process is comprised of two steps: first, the file is
   inspected to validate if it is well formed; second, all data are
   uploaded inside the system.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   If the incident already exists in the system with the same incident
   ID, the new one being imported will be created under a new ID.  This
   approach prevents accidentally overwriting existing information or
   merging inconsistent data.

   The IncMan Suite also includes a feature to upload incidents from

   The incident, described in XML format, can be stored directly into
   the body of the email message or transported as an attachment of the
   email.  At regular intervals that are customizable by the user, the
   IncMan Suite monitors for incoming emails, which are filtered by a
   configurable white-list and black-list mechanism on the sender's
   email account.  Then, a parser processes the received email and a new
   incident is created automatically after having validated the email
   body or the attachment to ensure the format is well formed.

4.3.  Surevine Proof of Concept

   XMPP is enhanced and extended through the XMPP Extension Protocols
   (XEPs).  XEP-0268 [XEP-0268] describes incident management (using
   IODEF) of the XMPP network itself, effectively supporting self-
   healing the XMPP network.  In order to more generically cover the
   incident management of a network over the same network, XEP-0268
   requires some updates.  We are working on these changes together with
   a new XEP that supports "social networking" over XMPP, which enhances
   the publish-and-subscribe XEP [XEP-0060].  This now allows nodes to
   publish and subscribe to any type of content and therefore receive
   the content.  XEP-0060 will be used to describe IODEF content.  We
   now have an alpha version of the server-side software and client-side
   software required to demonstrate the "social networking" capability
   and are currently enhancing this to support cyber incident management
   in real time.

4.4.  MANTIS Cyber-Intelligence Management Framework

   Model-based Analysis of Threat Intelligence Sources (MANTIS) provides
   an example implementation of a framework for managing cyber threat
   intelligence expressed in standards such as STIX, Cyber Observable
   Expression (CybOX), IODEF, etc.  The aims of providing such an
   example implementation are as follows:

   o  To facilitate discussions about emerging standards such as STIX,
      CybOX, et al., with respect to questions regarding tooling: how
      would a certain aspect be implemented, and how do changes affect
      an implementation?  Such discussions become much easier and have a
      better basis if they can be lead in the context of example tooling
      that is known to the community.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   o  To lower the barrier of entry for organizations and teams
      (especially CSIRT/CERT teams) in using emerging standards for
      cyber-threat-intelligence management and exchange.

   o  To provide a platform on the basis of which research and
      community-driven development in the area of cyber-threat-
      intelligence management can occur.

5.  Vendors with Planned Support

5.1.  Threat Central, HP

   HP has developed HP Threat Central, a security intelligence platform
   that enables automated, real-time collaboration between organizations
   to combat today's increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks.  One way
   automated sharing of threat indicators is achieved is through close
   integration with the HP ArcSight Security Information and Event
   Management (SIEM) for automated upload and consumption of information
   from the Threat Central Server.  In addition, HP Threat Central
   supports open standards for sharing threat information so that
   participants who do not use HP Security Products can participate in
   the sharing ecosystem.  It is planned that future versions will also
   support IODEF for the automated upload and download of threat


   DAEDALUS is a real-time alert system based on a large-scale darknet
   monitoring facility that has been deployed as a part of the Network
   Incident analysis Center for Tactical Emergency Response (nicter)
   system of NICT, which is based in Japan.  DAEDALUS consists of an
   analysis center (i.e., nicter) and several cooperative organizations.
   Each organization installs a darknet sensor and establishes a secure
   channel between it and the analysis center, and it continuously
   forwards darknet traffic toward the center.  In addition, each
   organization registers the IP address range of its livenet at the
   center in advance.  When these distributed darknet sensors observe
   malware activities from the IP address of a cooperating organization,
   then the analysis center sends an alert to the organization.  The
   future version of DAEDALUS will support IODEF for sending alert
   messages to the users.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

6.  Other Implementations

6.1.  Collaborative Incident Management System

   A Collaborative Incident Management System (CIMS) is a proof-of-
   concept system for collaborative incident handling and for the
   sharing of information about cyber defense situational awareness
   between the participants; it was developed for the Cyber Coalition
   2013 (CC13) exercise organized by the North Atlantic Treaty
   Organization (NATO).  CIMS was implemented based on Request Tracker
   (RT), an open source software widely used for handling incident
   responses by many CERTs and CSIRTs.

   One of the functionalities implemented in CIMS was the ability to
   import and export IODEF messages in the body of emails.  The intent
   was to verify the suitability of IODEF to achieve the objective of
   collaborative incident handling.  The customized version of RT could
   be configured to send an email message containing an IODEF message
   whenever an incident ticket was created, modified, or deleted.  These
   IODEF messages would then be imported into other incident handling
   systems in order to allow participating CSIRTs to use their usual
   means for incident handling while still interacting with those using
   the proof-of-concept CIMS.  Having an IODEF message generated for
   every change made to the incident information in RT (and for the
   system to allow incoming IODEF email messages to be associated to an
   existing incident) would in some way allow all participating CSIRTs
   to actually work on a "common incident ticket", at least at the
   conceptual level.  Of particular importance was the ability for users
   to exchange information between each other concerning actions taken
   in the handling of a particular incident, thus creating a sort of
   common action log as well as requesting/tasking others to provide
   information or perform a specified action and correlating received
   responses to the original request or task.  As well, a specific
   "profile" was developed to identify a subset of the IODEF classes
   that would be used during the exercise in an attempt to channel all
   users into a common usage pattern of the otherwise flexible IODEF

6.2.  Automated Incident Reporting - AirCERT

   AirCERT was implemented by the CERT / Coordination Center (CC) of
   Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute CERT division.
   AirCERT was designed to be an Internet-scalable distributed system
   for sharing security event data.  The AirCERT system was designed to
   be an automated collector of flow and Intrusion Detection System
   (IDS) alerts.  AirCERT would collect that information into a
   relational database and be able to share reporting using IODEF and
   the Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format [RFC4765].  AirCERT

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   additionally used SNML [SNML] to exchange information about the
   network.  AirCERT was implemented in a combination of C and Perl
   modules and included periodic graphing capabilities leveraging the
   Round-Robin Database Tool (RRDTool).

   AirCERT was intended for large-scale distributed deployment and,
   eventually, the ability to sanitize data to be shared across
   administrative domains.  The architecture was designed to allow
   collection of data on a per-site basis and to allow each site to
   create data sharing based on its own particular trust relationships.

6.3.  US Department of Energy CyberFed

   The CyberFed system was implemented and deployed by Argonne National
   Laboratory to automate the detection and response of attack activity
   against Department of Energy (DoE) computer networks.  CyberFed
   automates the collection of network alerting activity from various
   perimeter network defenses and logs those events into its database.
   CyberFed then automatically converts that information into blocking
   information transmitted to all participants.  The original
   implementation used IODEF messages wrapped in an XML extension to
   manage a large array of indicators.  The CyberFed system was not
   designed to describe a particular incident as much as to describe a
   set of current network-blocking indicators that can be generated and
   deployed machine to machine.

   CyberFed is primarily implemented in Perl.  Included as part of the
   CyberFed system are scripts that interact with a large number of
   firewalls, IDS / Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) devices, DNS
   systems, and proxies that operate to implement both the automated
   collection of events as well as the automated deployment of black

   Currently, CyberFed supports multiple exchange formats including
   IODEF and STIX.  Open Indicators of Compromise (OpenIOC) is also a
   potential exchange format that the US DoE is considering.

7.  Implementation Guide

   The section aims at sharing tips for development of IODEF-capable

7.1.  Code Generators

   For implementing IODEF-capable systems, it is feasible to employ code
   generators for the XML Schema Definition (XSD).  The generators are
   used to save development costs since they automatically create useful
   libraries for accessing XML attributes, composing messages, and/or

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   validating XML objects.  The IODEF XSD was defined in Section 8 of
   RFC 5070 [RFC5070] and is available from the "ns" registry

   However, some issues remain.  Due to the complexity of the IODEF XSD,
   some code generators could not generate code from the XSD file.  The
   tested code generators are as follows.

   o  XML::Pastor [XSD:Perl] (Perl)

   o  RXSD [XSD:Ruby] (Ruby)

   o  PyXB [XSD:Python] (Python)

   o  JAXB [XSD:Java] (Java)

   o  CodeSynthesis XSD [XSD:Cxx] (C++)

   o  Xsd.exe [XSD:CS] (C#)

   For instance, we have tried to use XML::Pastor, but it could not
   properly understand its schema due to the complexity of IODEF XSD.
   The same applies to Ruby XSD (RXSD) and Java Architecture for XML
   Binding (JAXB).  Only Python XML Schema Bindings (PyXB),
   CodeSynthesis XSD, and Xsd.exe were able to understand the complex

   Unfortunately, there is no recommended workaround.  A possible
   workaround is a double conversion of the XSD file.  This entails the
   XSD being serialized into XML; afterwards, the resulting XML is
   converted back into an XSD.  The resultant XSD was successfully
   processed by all the tools listed above.

   It should be noted that IODEF uses '-' (hyphen) symbols in its
   classes or attributes, which are listed as follows:

   o  IODEF-Document Class: It is the top-level class in the IODEF data
      model described in Section 3.1 of RFC 5070 [RFC5070].

   o  The vlan-name and vlan-num Attributes: According to Section 3.16.2
      of RFC 5070 [RFC5070], they are the name and number of Virtual LAN
      and are the attributes for Address class.

   o  Extending the Enumerated Values of Attribute: According to
      Section 5.1 of RFC 5070 [RFC5070], this is an extension technique
      to add new enumerated values to an attribute, and it has a prefix
      of "ext-", e.g., ext-value, ext-category, ext-type, and so on.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   According to the language specification, many programming languages
   prohibit having '-' symbols in the name of class.  The code
   generators must replace or remove the '-' when building the
   libraries.  They should have the name space restore the '-' when
   outputting the XML along with IODEF XSD.

7.2.  iodeflib

   iodeflib is an open source implementation written in Python.  This
   provides simple but powerful APIs to create, parse, and edit IODEF
   documents.  It was designed in order to keep its interface as simple
   as possible, whereas generated libraries tend to inherit the
   complexity of IODEF XSD.  In addition, the iodeflib interface
   includes functions to hide some unnecessarily nested structures of
   the IODEF schema and add more convenient shortcuts.

   This tool is available through the following link:


7.3.  iodefpm

   IODEF.pm is an open source implementation written in Perl.  This also
   provides a simple interface for creating and parsing IODEF documents
   in order to facilitate the translation of the key-value-based format
   to the IODEF representation.  The module contains a generic XML DTD
   parser and includes a simplified node-based representation of the
   IODEF DTD.  Hence, it can easily be upgraded or extended to support
   new XML nodes or other DTDs.

   This tool is available through the following link:


7.4.  Usability

   Some tips to avoid problems are noted here:

   o  IODEF has a category attribute for the NodeRole class.  Though
      various categories are described, they are not sufficient.  For
      example, in the case of webmail servers, should the user choose
      "www" or "mail"?  One suggestion is to select "mail" as the
      category attribute and add "www" for another attribute.

   o  The numbering of incident IDs needs to be considered.  Otherwise,
      information, such as the number of incidents within a certain
      period, could be observed by document receivers.  This is easily
      mitigated by randomizing the assignment of incident IDs.

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not require any IANA actions.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document provides a summary of implementation reports from
   researchers and vendors who have implemented RFCs and drafts from the
   MILE and INCH working groups.  There are no security considerations
   added because of the nature of the document.

10.  Informative References

   [RFC4765]  Debar, H., Curry, D., and B. Feinstein, "The Intrusion
              Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)", RFC 4765,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4765, March 2007,

   [RFC5070]  Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
              Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5070, December 2007,

   [RFC5901]  Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document
              Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5901, July 2010,

   [RFC5941]  M'Raihi, D., Boeyen, S., Grandcolas, M., and S. Bajaj,
              "Sharing Transaction Fraud Data", RFC 5941,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5941, August 2010,

   [RFC6545]  Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)",
              RFC 6545, DOI 10.17487/RFC6545, April 2012,

   [RFC6546]  Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network
              Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6546, April 2012,

   [RFC7203]  Takahashi, T., Landfield, K., and Y. Kadobayashi, "An
              Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
              Extension for Structured Cybersecurity Information",
              RFC 7203, DOI 10.17487/RFC7203, April 2014,

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017

   [RFC7970]  Danyliw, R., "The Incident Object Description Exchange
              Format Version 2", RFC 7970, DOI 10.17487/RFC7970,
              November 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7970>.

   [SNML]     Trammell, B., Danyliw, R., Levy, S., and A. Kompanek,
              "AirCERT: The Definitive Guide", 2005,

   [XEP-0060] Millard, P., Saint-Andre, P., and R. Meijer, "XEP-0060:
              Publish-Subscribe", December 2016,

   [XEP-0268] Hefczy, A., Jensen, F., Remond, M., Saint-Andre, P., and
              M. Wild, "XEP-0268: Incident Handling", May 2012,

   [XSD:CS]   Microsoft, "XML Schema Definition Tool (Xsd.exe)",

   [XSD:Cxx]  CodeSynthesis, "XSD: XML Data Binding for C++",

   [XSD:Java] Project Kenai, "Project JAXB", <https://jaxb.java.net/>.

   [XSD:Perl] Ulsoy, A., "XML-Pastor-1.0.4",

              Bigot, P., "PyXB 1.2.5: Python XML Schema Bindings",

   [XSD:Ruby] Morsi, M., "XSD / Ruby Translator",

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 8134               MILE Implementation Report               May 2017


   The MILE implementation report has been compiled through the
   submissions of implementers of INCH and MILE working group standards.
   A special note of thanks to the following contributors:

      John Atherton, Surevine

      Humphrey Browning, Deep-Secure

      Dario Forte, DFLabs

      Tomas Sander, HP

      Ulrich Seldeslachts, ACDC

      Takeshi Takahashi, National Institute of Information and
      Communications Technology Network Security Research Institute

      Kathleen Moriarty, EMC

      Bernd Grobauer, Siemens

      Dandurand Luc, NATO

      Pawel Pawlinski, NASK

Authors' Addresses

   Chris Inacio
   Carnegie Mellon University
   4500 5th Ave., SEI 4108
   Pittsburgh, PA  15213
   United States of America

   Email: inacio@andrew.cmu.edu

   Daisuke Miyamoto
   The University of Tokyo
   2-11-16 Yayoi, Bunkyo
   Tokyo  113-8658

   Email: daisu-mi@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Inacio & Miyamoto             Informational                    [Page 16]