IESG Response:
If this were to be published as an Experimental RFC, our response would
be:
1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and
IETF work
If this were to be published as Informational RFC, we believe that the
current IANA considerations section (which recommends the use of
Experimental code points) would be inappropriate. Changing the IANA
section to actually allocate protocol numbers would be premature
given the current level of interest and input from the community
on this particular version of the proposal. As a result,
our response for Informational RFC would be:
4. The IESG thinks that this document violates IETF procedures for
protocol number (RFC 5237) and TCP option allocation and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval
The IESG notes that this should not be taken as an indication
that protocol number allocations are inappropriate for Independent
Submissions. RFC 5237 allows IESG Approval of such allocations,
but the asks the IESG to make a judgment call on whether the
community interest and other factors call for it.
Finally, the IESG notes that discussions have been going on
about adopting a new version of SEAL in the IETF standards process.
We believe it would be useful to publish the Experimental RFC before
this happens, and note that if the work is adopted, allocating
code points specifically for SEAL would not be a problem.
IESG Note:
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution
in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See
RFC 3932 for more information.