RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

 

It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.

 

Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected to the current text in section 8.

The authors have responded on the MANET list

 

> We believe that only comments that lead to significant improvements of

> the draft deserve a listing in the acknowledgment section, and we have

> therefore not modified the section.

 

I have reviewed the email threads on the MANET mailing list and do not consider that Abdussalam made contributions to the text of the document. I also believe that the comments he made did not advance the content of the document. Furthermore, per multiple references (such as RFC 2026) the Acknowledgements section is used to "properly acknowledge major contributors." Normal IETF business is to discuss not seek acknowledgement.

 

I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam should be named in this draft.

 

The authors have posted a revised I-D handling other IETF last call issues, and I will advance that to IESG evaluation.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 June 2013 17:10
To: ietf
Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

 

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.

 

Thanks

Ulrich

 

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