Hi Adrian My comments below, On 6/2/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. So I understand you agree with my suggestion on this I-D to referencing/refering to that draft [1]. > > 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. I think the work completes when the WG submits to AD, but reviews not completed. IMHO, the draft/work [1] is completed from WGLC, and now is at AD review. > 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. I suggest the I-D referencing. I do not think I suggested way of reviews, but that other satetment was my opinion/beleive or advise to community of such reveiw for output quality. I don't understand why you think it was wrong way of review, after you agreed to reference such document (usually my reviewing reviews all references as well). Regards AB > >> 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 > >