Hi,
I've been meaning to review this draft for some time, but I have just
realised why I can't do so effectively.
It's a proposed update of one our two most basic process documents, where
we currently have more than 120 instances of currently running code. But
I can't actually tell whether the draft reflects the original RFC, plus
its updates and errata, plus learnings from the running code.
I hate to say this, but I think the draft needs to go back to the drawing
board. I think it needs to proceed in small steps (a good example is
the way rfc2460bis is proceeding in 6man).
1. Publish a -00 draft which is simply the text of 2418 as-is but in current
format.
2. Publish a -01 draft with the errata fixed.
3. Publish a -02 draft with the RFC 3934 update patched in.
4. Publish a -03 draft with the RFC 7475 update patched in.
5. Publish a -04 draft with the RFC 7221 material patched in.
(If there are other RFCs that should really have been updates to 2418,
repeat the process.)
At that point we'd have a draft that represents agreed consensus up
to date.
Then we could discuss what needs adding or changing based on operational
experience.
Trying to jump straight to the end point like the current draft seems
highly unlikely to converge.
Brian