Re: Opinion requested: Independent submission of draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-11

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Philip and Mike,
   Thanks for your comments. I will pass your reviews onto Nevil (the ISE) 
for his consideration and see if we can get them addressed by the authors.

Regards
Suresh

On 09/23/2016 06:16 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your comments Philip. I do agree with a lot of your comments but
>> unlike the IETF stream where we have the possibility to get these addressed
>> with extensive text changes, there are only five responses we can provide to
>> the ISE for a conflict review request as described in RFC5742
>>
>>    1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
>>       document and IETF work.
>>
>>    2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
>>       in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
>>
>>    3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt
>>       the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
>>       document at this time.
>>
>>    4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
>>       for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review
>>       and IESG approval.
>>
>>    5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
>>       in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
>>       published without IETF review and IESG approval.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I have found over time that draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview has been a
> useful document to ask people to read who have no idea about the SADR
> problem space.
>
> It seems mostly to document ongoing (sometimes historical) work in a few
> WGs (references several expired drafts), but span several of them (MIF
> (now INTAREA), 6MAN, V6OPS), perhaps some other WG.
>
> It's also "informational", which (afaik) lowers the bar for publication.
>
> It has at least one old reference, for instance to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10 which is now
> RFC7788. It also claims in 3.1 OSPF is used by HNCP, whereas RFC7788
> doesn't contain the word OSPF.
>
> So my recommendation is that -11 shouldn't be published as-is because it's
> not accurate (which isn't one of the options above?). What to do if these
> problems are fixed in a -12 version, I don't know. I would like to see
> more review for accuracy before publication. I'm not saying this needs to
> be IETF-wide review, but of the options above, that's the only one that
> would fit.
>
> If I didn't have to choose any of the options you listed, I'd say review
> and discussion in V6OPS and INTAREA, a few more revisions, and I'd support
> publication. But... I have little idea about IETF procedures and how these
> kinds of documents have been handled historically.
>