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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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