Subject: [Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:03:47 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: 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-insipid-session-id/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(I'm entering a DISCUSS to make sure we get discussion of this topic
among the ISEG before we progress the document. Whatever the outcome, I
expect to clear the DISCUSS and go back to a YES position after the
telechat.)

Please see the thread resulting from Elwyn's gen-art review from the 2nd
IETF last call, called specifically because of the downref to RFC 7206
that was added after the first LC. This downref was due to the
definitions of "communication session" and "session ID" from that RFC.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3cLlqju62bY1w5MTA72YpOjL_GQ

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:38:34 -0500

(+ Elwyn so he can correct me if I mischaracterize anything.)

I'd like to get other AD's opinions on Elwyn's concern.

To recap, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id normatively references RFC 7206 
due to some definitions. 7206 is an informational requirements draft, of 
the sort we might or might not agree to publish if the decision came up 
again. Elwyn argues that, since the information RFC may not have gotten 
the same level of review as a PS would have, that it's not appropriate 
to allow a normative downref. He argues that the authors should instead 
copy the definitions into the draft in question.

My counter argument is that the definitions in RFC 7206 (Namely 
"communication session" and "session-id") are fairly long and nuanced, 
with a fair amount of discussion.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 15 Aug 2016, at 16:03, Ben Campbell wrote:

> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html