Hi, I think it's OK to add an informative reference to draft-ietf-nhdp-olsrv2-sec, which serves as a pointer to the related work going on, and possible countermeasures to the threats.
best Jiazi On Jun 3, 2013, at 07:35 , Ulrich Herberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > I personally agree that adding an informational ref to > draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my > co-authors. > > Thanks > Ulrich > > On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference > to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec > Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently > specified, > it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress > that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in > this document. > > I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the > situation > with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been > completed. > Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it > would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to > address this document. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft > > [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its > > references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I > > suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates > > to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this > > I-D. > > > > [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02 >
