Hi,
Anyone can let me know our IETF group name.
Sandeep Joshi
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 30 January 2016 13:58
To: Ted Hardie; Harald Alvestrand
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Results of IETF-conflict review for
draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07
Hi,
On 1/27/16 4:50 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Recent proposals discussed in the IETF have identified benefits to
more distinctly identifying the hosts that are hidden behind a shared
address/prefix sharing device or application-layer proxy. Analysis
indicates that the use of a TCP option for this purpose can be
successfully applied to some use cases.
The proposals have identified benefits according to the authors,
but the IETF declined to adopt them because there were far bigger
downsides. This abstract gives the opposite impression, which is not
exactly kosher.
I agree with Ted about the abstract; that at the very least it should be
reworded. Referring to the IETF needs to be fairly done in the independent
series. We already have enough problems with people distinguishing IETF from
independent work. However...
Armchair lawyers will also note that the procedure refers to "IETF
specifications". An independent-submission RFC is *not* an IETF
specification.
Yes, and we have historically said that publishing things in
the ISE stream when they counter IETF specifications can
only be done when the IESG deems there to be no conflict
with IETF specifications. This clearly does conflict with the
thrust of efforts in the IETF (e.g. tcpinc).
RFC 5742 is quite explicit. BCP88 itself is not a specification but a Best
Current Practice, and limits its applicability to IETF, and not independent,
specifications. As to whether this conflicts with "the thrust of efforts in"
tcpinc, that is not what the IESG wrote. If it had written it, the
justification would have to again be based on what is stated in RFC 5742,
specifically in Section 3. There should be at least sufficient information to
indicate what the nature of the conflict is. Having a different opinion than
that of the IETF or a working group is not a justification for non-publication,
but rather a justification for the existence of the ISE.
In short, I believe the IESG erred procedurally, and would suggest they revisit
their approach. Haralds query about attaching an IESG note seems entirely
appropriate.
Eliot