I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments. Therefore, this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to section 8 that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D.
AB
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Adrian,I personally agree that adding an informational ref to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my co-authors.ThanksUlrich
On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel 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.
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.
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.
Thanks,
Adrian
> 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