wiki:DraftShepherdWriteupWgRespComplex

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Herkermer Biffelwogg. The responsible Area Director is Shaquila Yazenzahta.

This document extends the Lightweight Modular Network Operations Protocol (LMNOP) by adding an option to control optimization of frodiddles when the evil bit is set. It is proposing the new option as a standard extension to LMNOP. Some operational experience is needed, and the working group considered making this Experimental, but after an extended discussion and consultation with the AD it was decided that the proposal is solid and PS is appropriate.

2. Review and Consensus

There was particular controversy in the discussion of situations involving the evil bit with avian carrier networks. The consensus on that point was quite rough, and resulted in the text in Section 3.14. There was also a great deal of discussion about paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Security Considerations, and careful review of those paragraphs is needed.

There was especially active discussion of the first six versions, while the controversial points were nailed down, and most of the active working group participants reviewed at least one of those versions and provided useful comments. Reviews of versions -06 and beyond have been very light, as those represented minor changes and working group energy moved over to other documents. There is strong consensus behind the document, with significant grumbling remaining about Section 3.14.

No formal reviews are needed for this, but, as stated above, a security review is needed, with a particular look at paragraphs 7 and 8 of Security Considerations. The Operations Directorate has reviewed this (changes were made in version -08 based on that), and we have requested an Applications Directorate review. The shepherd has no other concerns.

During document development, one participant built a prototype implementation, and results from that helped shape the document and demonstrate the practicality of some of the questionable points (particularly what's in Sections 4.3 and 4.4). There's a lot of interest in implementing this after publication -- at least six participants have promised quick roll-out of this extension.

3. Intellectual Property

Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There is one IPR disclosure on the document, not from any of the authors. When the disclosure was filed, the chairs specifically asked for comments on the mailing list. They asked again during working group last call. No comments were made at either time.

4. Other Points

There is a normative downref to RFC 9876, "Security Aspects of Hypothetical Biffles".

The IANA Considerations needed some work, which was done in version -09; I believe it's now clear and ready. The document creates one new registry, Frodiddle Optimization Parameters. The authors suggested IETF Review for this, and there was a brief discussion considering Specification Required. The working group decided that insufficiently reviewed parameters could cause operational problems on the network, and settled on IETF Review to address that. That also means that no designated expert is needed.

As noted above, there's still a lot of discontent about Section 3.14, and any wording changes to that section will likely need to come back to the working group, and will re-open old discussions. Some people were also not happy with the way consensus judgments were made in regard to that, but we don't anticipate any appeals.

Last modified 10 years ago Last modified on 20/09/12 18:20:27