ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07

2016-02-04 10:16:12
FWIW, the reason I'm pushing on this is that it feels like the IESG is violating the spirit of RFC 5742 by saying "The IETF doesn't want to work on this draft, so you should not publish it". That removes a lot of the independence from the ISE.

The TCP option detailed in draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt is extending an IETF protocol, and a very important IETF protocol, i.e., TCP, that requires IETF review and consensus. Furthermore, the proposed mechanism allows middleboxes to tag TCP connections with additional identifiers that persistently can mark users. Therefore, the IESG concluded that this draft violates RFC 7258, and does so while extending an IETF protocol.

To reiterate what some others have said on this thread: please specify how this draft "violates" RFC 7258. My reading of that RFC and the discussion that lead to it, comes to a very different conclusion.

The draft was reviewed in the TCPM working group and received negative feedback:
http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/lM9-Frq945LP12GKbp02hnynuWw

Note that this is a pointer to a message about a much-earlier version of the draft that has less explanatory text than the one being reviewed by the ISE. To me, this is an indicator that the draft needed fixing in order to meet the requirements of RFC 7258 of documenting the design decisions, and that the authors may have done so between -04 and -07.

There have been also other places in the IETF where this draft was presented and rejected.

If that's true, why did the IESG say that this draft is related to work in INTAREA? I interpreted that as a request that the authors take this draft to INTAREA, but now you're saying because the draft was

--Paul Hoffman