John,
Just on one aspect of your comments:
On 28/01/2016 00:06, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I'm saying that the IESG's justification for recommending it
not be published needs to be more explicit about what the
problem is, and why requesting an IESG note to be added saying
"this is a Bad Idea" isn't a better IESG response.
What he said, although I think "this is a Bad Idea" IESG notes
should require justification, explanation, and an author
opportunity to rebut the IESG view.
Well, I thought the purpose of RFC 5742 was to limit the amount
of time (and therefore the depth of review) that the IESG "invests"
in independent submissions. They aren't obliged to provide a proposed
IESG Note. In this case they chose not to. Unarguably, that leaves the
decision with the ISE.
There is in fact considerable IESG discussion logged at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt/history/
which I found from the link given in the IESG message.
There was also some discussion in TCPM but clearly no consensus to proceed.
Quite apart from privacy arguments, there was technical concern:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/IyRmcgoXFgWqIiAdNhGE7M4DMOw
Honestly I don't smell a rat here. There's no way to fix this document
to alleviate the privacy concern; the technical concern is quite
compatible with Experimental status. Both concerns are clear enought
in the IESG and TCPM records, and no doubt the authors are well aware
of them. The ISE gets to decide.
Brian