FWIW, the reason I'm pushing on this is that it feels like the IESG is
violating the spirit of RFC 5742 by saying "The IETF doesn't want to
work on this draft, so you should not publish it". That removes a lot of
the independence from the ISE.
The TCP option detailed in draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt is
extending an IETF protocol, and a very important IETF protocol, i.e.,
TCP, that requires IETF review and consensus. Furthermore, the
proposed mechanism allows middleboxes to tag TCP connections with
additional identifiers that persistently can mark users. Therefore,
the IESG concluded that this draft violates RFC 7258, and does so
while extending an IETF protocol.
To reiterate what some others have said on this thread: please specify
how this draft "violates" RFC 7258. My reading of that RFC and the
discussion that lead to it, comes to a very different conclusion.
The draft was reviewed in the TCPM working group and received negative
feedback:
http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/lM9-Frq945LP12GKbp02hnynuWw
Note that this is a pointer to a message about a much-earlier version of
the draft that has less explanatory text than the one being reviewed by
the ISE. To me, this is an indicator that the draft needed fixing in
order to meet the requirements of RFC 7258 of documenting the design
decisions, and that the authors may have done so between -04 and -07.
There have been also other places in the IETF where this draft was
presented and rejected.
If that's true, why did the IESG say that this draft is related to work
in INTAREA? I interpreted that as a request that the authors take this
draft to INTAREA, but now you're saying because the draft was
--Paul Hoffman