Re: [Roll] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charles,

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:48 PM Charles Perkins <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  > I concur with Roman's DISCUSS, especially around the use of SHOULD.
>  > I'd go further and ask why that's not a MUST, or in the alternative,
>  > suggest that you provide some guidance around why an implementer might
>  > legitimately decide against doing what the SHOULD says.
>
> See also the response to Roman Danyliw.  An implementer might decide to
> use a proprietary security configuration, and not use the security
> specification provided by RPL.  Alternatively, certain closed systems
> will not be vulnerable to insertion of a rogue router, and cost savings
> or performance improvements might be realized by eliminating unnecessary
> security operations.
>

You might consider including such guidance around the SHOULD, if it's not
there already in some form.

  > The document shepherd writeup is more than two years old.
>
> This project fell off of my plate due to changes in employment and
> many urgent distractions.  Please excuse the delay.
>

You're the author, not the shepherd or the co-chair.  :-)  The concern I'm
raising here is that such a long time between the writeup and IESG
Evaluation forces me to wonder how stale the writeup's content is.  We,
collectively, should get in the habit of checking on this sort of detail
before it hits IESG Evaluation.

-MSK