Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-arch-22

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> First, thank you for your technical review on this document. The more eyes
> on a document, the better the result.
>

And thank you for the reply!


> Allow me to reply, as the responsible AD for DRIP, about your last point:
> whether this work should happen at the IETF.
>
> As an IESG member, my view is that the IETF should welcome new pieces of
> work related to IP technologies. After two BoF, and a community consensus,
> the DRIP WG was officially formed (i.e., with the IETF community support).
> While the DRIP meetings do not attract hundreds of people, there are enough
> IETF engineers to make progress. So, in my opinion, this work can be done
> at the IETF (albeit other fora could have hosted it as the work is at the
> border of other fora -- like ICAO). The charter is also explicitly
> requesting the re-use of existing protocols as much as possible.
>

Understood and stipulated. I'm explicitly second-guessing IETF consensus on
this one from the vantage point of hypotheticals such as "If I were looking
for standards in this area, where would I first look?", mostly because I
have had the discussion of scope creep in the past with fellow IETFers and
wanted a concrete example of what I mean by that documented somewhere.

Anyway, I expected to be in the rough on this one, so I won't belabor it
further.
Thanks,
Kyle