Re: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07

Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> · Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:28:06 +0100



    Hi,

    
    On 1/27/16 4:50 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

    
                   Recent proposals discussed in the IETF have identified benefits to
   more distinctly identifying the hosts that are hidden behind a shared
   address/prefix sharing device or application-layer proxy.  Analysis
   indicates that the use of a TCP option for this purpose can be
   successfully applied to some use cases. 
                The proposals have identified benefits according to the
                authors, 

                but the IETF declined to adopt them because there were
                far bigger

              
              downsides. 
                This abstract gives the opposite impression, which is
                not

              
              exactly
                kosher.

              
    I agree with Ted about the abstract; that at the very least it
    should be reworded.  Referring to the IETF needs to be fairly done
    in the independent series.  We already have enough problems with
    people distinguishing IETF from independent work.  However...

    
              Armchair lawyers will also note that the procedure refers
              to "IETF

              specifications". An independent-submission RFC is *not* an
              IETF

              specification.

              
              Yes,
                and we have historically said that publishing things in
                

              the
                ISE stream when they counter IETF specifications can

              
              only
                be done when the IESG deems there to be no conflict

              
              with
                IETF specifications.  This clearly does conflict with
                the

              
              thrust
                of efforts in the IETF (e.g. tcpinc). 
            
          
    RFC 5742 is quite explicit.  BCP88 itself is not a specification but
    a Best Current Practice, and limits its applicability to IETF, and
    not independent, specifications.  As to whether this conflicts with
    "the thrust of efforts in" tcpinc, that is not what the IESG wrote. 
    If it had written it, the justification would have to again be based
    on what is stated in RFC 5742, specifically in Section 3.  There
    should be at least sufficient information to indicate what the
    nature of the conflict is.  Having a different opinion than that of
    the IETF or a working group is not a justification for
    non-publication, but rather a justification for the existence of the
    ISE.

    
    In short, I believe the IESG erred procedurally, and would suggest
    they revisit their approach.  Haralds query about attaching an IESG
    note seems entirely appropriate.

    
    Eliot

  
Attachment:
signature.asc

Description: OpenPGP digital signature