Hi Adrian
My comments below,
On 6/2/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward
reference
to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec
Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently
specified,
it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in
progress
that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described
in
this document.
So I understand you agree with my suggestion on this I-D to
referencing/refering to that draft [1].
I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the
situation
with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been
completed.
I think the work completes when the WG submits to AD, but reviews not
completed. IMHO, the draft/work [1] is completed from WGLC, and now is
at AD review.
Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and
it
would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made
to
address this document.
I suggest the I-D referencing. I do not think I suggested way of
reviews, but that other satetment was my opinion/beleive or advise to
community of such reveiw for output quality. I don't understand why
you think it was wrong way of review, after you agreed to reference
such document (usually my reviewing reviews all references as well).
Regards
AB
I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft
[1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its
references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I
suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates
to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this
I-D.
[1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02