I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document appears to change ONLY the IRTF review process -- the
IESG long ago quit reviewing the substance of independent documents
from a security perspective. Accordingly, the security considerations
is correct:
The process change described in this memo has no direct bearing on
the security of the Internet.
That said, I'm puzzled by the continued inclusion of "rejected
alternative bypass" as a reason to delay publication. In section 4,
this document proposes that readers could be confused by the order of
publication of documents. At the same time, this document is removing
the mandatory IESG note from independent submissions in favor of a new
header (defined in another doc, listed as a normative reference). If
that header is sufficient to dispel confusion when it comes to the
substantive matters of "we haven't reviewed this", can't it also be
relied on to be adequate to avoid confusion arising from publication
order? Accordingly, I suggest removing reason 3, as least so far as
"rejected alternative bypass" is concerned.
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf