On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First, thank you for your technical review on this document. The more eyes on a document, the better the result.
And thank you for the reply!
Allow me to reply, as the responsible AD for DRIP, about your last point: whether this work should happen at the IETF.
As an IESG member, my view is that the IETF should welcome new pieces of work related to IP technologies. After two BoF, and a community consensus, the DRIP WG was officially formed (i.e., with the IETF community support). While the DRIP meetings do not attract hundreds of people, there are enough IETF engineers to make progress. So, in my opinion, this work can be done at the IETF (albeit other fora could have hosted it as the work is at the border of other fora -- like ICAO). The charter is also explicitly requesting the re-use of existing protocols as much as possible.
Understood and stipulated. I'm explicitly second-guessing IETF consensus on this one from the vantage point of hypotheticals such as "If I were looking for standards in this area, where would I first look?", mostly because I have had the discussion of scope creep in the past with fellow IETFers and wanted a concrete example of what I mean by that documented somewhere.
Anyway, I expected to be in the rough on this one, so I won't belabor it further.
Thanks,
Kyle
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
