Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 3/18/2014 11:18 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Just one bit here that Joel has touched on, but that I want to say clearly:
>
>> The authors need to make the case to the TSVWG (?) that this needs to become
>> a WG doc, and then we can all scrutinize/optimize it in public.
>
> 1. It's absolutely right to say that &WG (be that TSVWG or any other)
> needs to review a document that's being put forth for IETF consensus.
>
> 2. It's absolutely right to say that the comments that result from
> that review need to be addressed.
>
> 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go
> forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product.  If they do,
> that's very nice.  If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that
> have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2.  But if they
> simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document
> from progressing.

Hazard to the Internet?

At the least, it would presumably have a very high hurdle for being 
standards-track.

But I don't understand why a protocol extension that would be considered 
harmful must be published by the RFC Editor.

Joe