I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments. Therefore, this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to section 8 that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D.
AB On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulr...@herberg.name> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > I personally agree that adding an informational ref to > draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my > co-authors. > > Thanks > Ulrich > > > On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Hi Abdussalam, >> >> I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward >> reference >> to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec >> Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently >> specified, >> it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in >> progress >> that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats >> described in >> this document. >> >> I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the >> situation >> with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been >> completed. >> Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 >> and it >> would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being >> made to >> address this document. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> > I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft >> > [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its >> > references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I >> > suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates >> > to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this >> > I-D. >> > >> > [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02 >> >>
