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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

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