Hi Stephen,
At 13:47 27-01-2016, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Actually, if people do find that sufficiently enlightening
or find it generates more questions, it'd be good to let
the IESG know eithr way, in case we miss stuff in crafting
a response (or to save us confusing matters more by trying
to clarify by adding words:-).
When I scanned the history, I think it did more or less
cover what I recall of the discussions (though that's easier
for me of course since I was part of 'em). The only missing
bit of info is that the IESG and ISE have arranged to have a
chat about all of our expectations for "returning items and
5742 review." We've had a couple of those recently, (one
that was easy-peasy and then this one:-), and people were a
bit confused about the right way to handle stuff. That chat
is planned to happen @ IETF95.
I am on the Independent Submissions Editorial Board. The following
is my opinion.
There are two points in the Conflict Review:
(a) draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07 violates IETF procedures about
pervasive monitoring (RFC 7258)
(b) This work is related to IETF work done in the INTAREA WG.
BCP 188 does not apply to the Independent Stream as it would apply to
a document in the IETF Stream. The Conflict Review note is skimpy on
the details. As I don't know the right way to handle this stuff I
thought that it would be better to have a conversation with you. I
would consider what is in RFC 4846 if I review the draft. There is,
for example: "
'the [IESG] evaluation should focus exclusively on conflicts or
confusion with IETF process and attempts to subvert ("end run")
working group activities.'
Is it appropriate to DNP an Independent Stream draft because the IESG
or the IETF does not agree to publication of the technical
specification? That would raise questions about the meaning of the
word "Independent".
Regards,
S. Moonesamy