The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-templin-seal-23.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)' <draft-templin-seal-23.txt> as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16926&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-seal-23.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
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this document violates IETF procedures for protocol number (RFC 5237) and TCP option allocation and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval The IESG notes that this should not be taken as an indication that protocol number allocations are inappropriate for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.