Last Call Review of draft-eastlake-fnv-28
review-eastlake-fnv-28-artart-lc-leiba-2024-10-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-eastlake-fnv |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 29) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-10-22 | |
| Requested | 2024-10-01 | |
| Authors | Glenn Fowler , Landon Curt Noll , Kiem-Phong Vo , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Tony Hansen | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-10-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -29
by Elwyn B. Davies
Secdir Last Call review of -29 by Watson Ladd Artart Last Call review of -28 by Barry Leiba (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-eastlake-fnv by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/TKSe4O3Bg8lXCjvXeUnZlhYiX3Q | |
| Reviewed revision | 28 (document currently at 29) | |
| Result | Not ready | |
| Completed | 2024-10-05 |
review-eastlake-fnv-28-artart-lc-leiba-2024-10-05-00
As this is documenting an existing algorithm that was not developed in the IETF, we have no control over the substance of the document, so I am not commenting on that: it is what it is. And that's exactly my issue with this: it's in the wrong stream. The shepherd writeup says that it was not developed in the IETF and there's no reason to put it on Standards Track, but also says that there's no reason it "needs to go to the ISE". I disagree: this is *exactly* the sort of document that the Independent stream is there for. There is no meaningful sense of IETF consensus on this -- all we can have is consensus to publish it as is. Ultimately, the IESG, not my review, will decide the right answer here. Please consider asking the ISE to move this to the Independent stream, where I think it should have been taken in the first place. Thanks.