[DNA] Re: Last Call: 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting NetworkAttachments' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dna-link-information)

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Sam,

The document has not been aimed at informational to reduce the
requirements for review.

The document has always been viewed as informational as it was intended
to provide context for implementors of DNA solutions which require
link-up indications.

There are no standards recommendations in the document.  No packets are
transferred and no protocol is defined.

What is provided are pointers for constructing internal APIs, which as I
understand, are not normally defined in IETF standards documents.

The difference with this document is that it relies upon packet transfer
behaviour of lower layer protocols.  The descriptions of protocols have
been provided to illustrate where packet transfer is available, and each
has been reviewed by
experts on the subject matter.

The decision of whether to make liaisons with other organizations formal or
informal was made with the ADs.

So is the question you have regarding the quality of the review, or on
the process itself?

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Monday, December 25, 2006 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting
Network Attachments' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dna-link-information)
To: Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, dna@eng.monash.edu.au,
dna-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Suresh Krishnan
<suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, iesg@ietf.org

> >>>>> "Greg" == Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au> writes:
> 
>    Greg> Dear Pekka, I understand your point about review by peer
>    Greg> organizations, if this were a standards or BCP document.
> 
>    Greg> It is purely informational, and has been reviewed by several
>    Greg> people who have worked both within IETF and other
>    Greg> organizations, without formal liaison with other
>    Greg> organizations.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with the practice of marking a document
> informational to reduce the review required and to avoid coming to
> consensus on important issues.
> 
> 
> I'd like to understand in this instance why informational requires
> less review than for another document category?  Do you intend this to
> be an ietf consensus recommendation?  If so, why does it require less
> review?  If not, what is the value in publishing?
> 
>