Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-05: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Apologies for changing to DISCUSS after my initial NO OBJECTION position, but I just realized an implication to my comment about copying the IKEv2 text: The shepherd's write up says "It is the proper type of RFC because the document describes implementation recommendations for a proposed standard and is not a proposed standard in itself.". But this document does not merely make recommendations; it claims to stand alone as a full specification of everything needed for a minimal implementation that works with IKEv2. I'd like to discuss why this should not be standards track, as it's currently written. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I question the choice of copying IKEv2 text forward into this document, at least without clearly marking (and citing) the copied text. What happens if 7296 gets updated or obsoleted? It seems like that would effectively fork the protocol. And since this draft does not seem to distinguish copied text from new text, I wonder if the other authors of 7296 should be considered authors of this document. _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
