Subject: [manet] FW: Input to the IESG on draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp

From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:07:42 -0400

FYI. Comments should go to the autoconf WG list, or to the iesg
([email-masked]). You will need to be on the autoconf WG email list to
post to that list, but anyone can send to the IESG email list. 

Thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 15 October 2008 07:40
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ross Callon
Subject: Input to the IESG on draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp

Dear all,

There are several ways to publish RFCs. One method is to take the 
document through a working group and the IETF process, and publish it as

an RFC when last call and IESG review have been completed.

Another method is called the Independent Submission method, and it 
allows people to submit documents to the RFC Editor directly, without 
any IETF review. Given the lack of review at the IETF, these are not 
standards of any sort. However, they can still be valuable contributions

and they are often used, for instance, to document vendor specific 
protocols or someone's thoughts on some topic. These documents do get 
some review from the IESG, however, to ensure, for instance, that they 
do not make IANA allocations that would require taking the document 
through the IETF process. Where there is some overlap with work in an 
IETF WG, the IESG has a variety of steps that it can recommend to the 
RFC editor, such as delaying publication so that the WG can first 
complete its work, and/or adding an IESG note to clarify the status of 
the document.

Fred Templin has submitted a document through the Independent 
Submissions process on his views about on MANET architecture, 
autoconfiguration, and use of DHCP. The IESG needs to make a decision on

what to do about this document. Fred's document does not define a 
protocol or allocate any new IANA values, so from that perspective there

is no reason for the IESG to recommend that it be delayed or not 
published. However, it does have overlap with the chartered work of 
AUTOCONF, namely with the architecture document. In these cases, the 
IESG can use its judgment to determine whether publishing the work will 
be harmful to the WGs progress, or to the industry. We'd like to collect

input from the WG on this matter. If there are no objections we are 
inclined to recommend that the RFC Editor publish Fred's document.

Please respond by Tuesday, Oct 21st. Note that we are not asking for 
technical feedback on Fred's document, or whether you believe its 
contents are correct or incorrect. If you have that type of input, 
please send it to Fred directly.

Finally, and more importantly we would also like the AUTOCONF WG to 
deliver its own architecture document as soon as possible. We know that 
Thomas and others are working on a new version, but the ADs want to 
stress that progress on this document is crucial for the continued 
existence of the WG. When the new version appears, we need substantial 
help from the WG to review and progress it.

Jari Arkko and Ross Callon

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet