Subject: Re: [manet] draft-shaio-manet-common-l3-interface

From: JS <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:44:15 -0700

Christopher,

I read RFC 2026 carefully as I know you did too:
section 4.2 clarifies that Informational and Experimental RFCs are not Internet Standards in any sense.

section 4.2.3, extending the part you quoted, says that Informational and Experimental RFCs should
not be used to circumvent the standards process and require that they not cover work being done,
or planned to be done, in an IETF working group.

The key objective of our CL3 draft is to allow integration of the many IP routers that do implement
MANET WG protocols with MANET that were not standardized by the MANET WG.

This is described in section 3 of our draft as well as the email threads regarding our draft. It is clear
from those threads, and from the MANET WG charter thread, that there does not seem to be an
effort in the WG to address this issue.

Our draft does not define message formats, specify codepoints, define a MIB, nor any other specification
that might be considered a standard. It therefore is not attempt to circumvent work done or being
planned in the MANET working group.

I quoted both of these sections below for ease of reference.

thanks,
     Jack Shaio

4.2  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

   Not every specification is on the standards track.  A specification
   may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended
   for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
   track.  A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
   Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.

   Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
   one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
   "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
   are not Internet Standards in any sense.

4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

   Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
   intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
   should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor will
   publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
   been so published.  In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
   they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
   easily recognizable.  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
   publication for comments before proceeding further.  The RFC Editor
   is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
   suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
   Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
   the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
   activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
   RFCs.

   To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
   designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
   Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
   will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
   Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
   may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
   IETF community.  The IESG shall review such a referred document
   within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
   published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
   contribution to the Internet Standards Process.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:41:27 +0000
 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
 Subject: Re: [manet] draft-shaio-manet-common-l3-interface
 Message-ID:
     <[email-masked]>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
 
 You need to read further in that section, starting
 
    To ensure that the non-standards track  Experimental and Informational
    designations are not misused to circumvent  the Internet Standards     Process
 
 I'm not saying you are, I'm saying the rest of that section  heavily modifies
 your summary of your intention below.
 
 Christopher Dearlove
 Senior Principal Engineer
 BAE Systems Applied Intelligence

 BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology
 Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. 
 www.baesystems.com/ai

 -----Original Message-----
 From: manet [mailto:[email-masked]]
 On Behalf Of Jack Shaio
 Sent: 27 March 2015 13:33
 To: Henning Rogge
 Cc: Broderick, Don; Caleb Lo; [email-masked]
 Subject: Re: [manet] draft-shaio-manet-common-l3-interface
 
 I believe that is true of draft standards but not of
 Informational or Experimental drafts, which do not define a
 standard and are provided only as information for the IETF
 community. 
 
 This is what I understood from the relevant section of RFC
 2026 which defined the process: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt

 4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational
 RFCs
 
    Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
    intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
    should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor will
    publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
    been so published.  In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
    they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D  directory so they are
    easily recognizable.  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
    publication for comments before proceeding  further...
  
 We thought this work was relevant to the manet WG and wanted
 to give the group another opportunity to comment on the
 draft first, before submitting directly to the RFC Editor as
 the procedures state.
 
 --jack shaio