RE: [fquick@qualcomm.com: Re: draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt]

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Thomas Narten writes...

>       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.
> 
> One question is whether this is sufficient.

I think this note is sufficient for a class of individual submission
RFCs for which the IETF has not undertaken a review for protocol quality
or has undertaken a cursory review and is not willing to make any
positive assertions.

I believe the draft in question falls into a different category, and
ought to have a somewhat different note.  This draft has been reviewed
for quality, at least by the IESG and the AAA Doctors (and perhaps
others) and found defective.  In this case the IETF would perhaps like
to make negative assertions with respect to protocol quality, instead of
simply withholding positive assertions.  The normative MUST NOT
violation may not be the only deficiency, but it serves to make the
point.

> What we can also do, is craft a custom note, that says even more,
> e.g., that the document does violate the Radius MUST NOT, why that is
> considered a bad thing, and that there are more appropriate ways of
> doing this... but since this has been deployed and can't be changed,
> better to publish.. or something.

I think that's the right approach to take, at this point.

> I'm willing to help wordsmith such a note, if that is what folk thing
> is appropriate. (I personally think such a note would be approriate --
> I'm in favor of truth-in-advertising.)

I agree.