I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the
I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged
by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying
not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final
comments. Therefore, this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is
an objection to section 8 that ignores acknowledge input/review effort
related to the I-D.
AB
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich(_at_)herberg(_dot_)name>
wrote:
Hi Adrian,
I personally agree that adding an informational ref to
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my
co-authors.
Thanks
Ulrich
On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel 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.
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.
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.
Thanks,
Adrian
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