Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 14, 2018, at 11:18 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This draft is standards track, yet it primarily serves to extend RFC 5176.

  By adding new capabilities which are not implemented anywhere.

> That
> RFC is informational. The shepherd writeup argues that this is okay because it
> seems like 5176 should have been standards track. But the applicability
> statement RFC 5176 explains why it was informational, and the reasons seem
> convincing.

  Those reasons apply to RFC 5176.  They don't apply to this document.

  Can we have a standards track document which defines *new* capabilities?  Capabilities which do not affect any existing implementation or deployment?

  Can we have a standards track document which depends on an informational document?

> Therefore I do not think it is appropriate to publish this draft as
> Standards Track. I think it would be fine to progress it as Informational (or
> even Experimental) if it included an applicability statement explaining why in
> order to avoid the appearance of a standard masquerading as an Informational
> RFC.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (My review is not yet complete; I wanted to get the DISUSS point out with as
> much discussion time as possible. I expect to follow up with an update sometime
> before the telechat.)
> 
>