On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, RJ Atkinson wrote:
3) I'll note that this document will NOT be an IETF RFC, will not be on the IETF standards-track, and is not an IPv6/6MAN WG document. This is in fact an individual submission that is proposed to be published as a non-IETF Informational RFC. It is being reviewed here because it proposes to allocate an IPv6 option number.
Actually, this is being proposed as an IETF RFC (as opposed to say, RFC-editor RFC) (you can see this by e.g. looking at the Evaluation record in the datatracker.). It seems to be an individual submission through an area director (Tim Polk).
The main difference is that (unless the rules have changed recently), rfc-editor RFC's get an "IESG Note" in the first page which says the document is not a product of the IETF, etc. which essentially disclaims any IETF endorsement of the protocol. This draft would not have such a note.
(Personally I would have a much smaller problem with the publication of this document if it included an appropriate IESG note.)
The second difference in this case is that the allocation guidelines for IPv6 options of this type are basically undefined at the moment. I think this is interpreted so that some IETF approval for new codepoints is required. It is not obvious why one couldn't just ask community the question "do we grant this codepoint for this purpose?" instead of "do we grant this codepoint for this purpose by approving this IETF RFC?"
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
