Sean Turner writes:
> Yes - you can ask the ISE (https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html) to
> publish.
I am not sure if that helps, as RFC 5742 section 3 will still put it
to IESG, and IESG still needs to consider the document and decide
which conclusion it will come with it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The IESG review of these Independent Submission and IRTF stream
documents results in one of the following five types of conclusion,
any of which may be accompanied by a request to include an IESG note
if the document is published.
1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
document and IETF work.
2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt
the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
document at this time.
4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review
and IESG approval.
5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If those numbers are added to "Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Attributes"
registry (hey, there is new xml version of the registry
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry/ipsec-registry.xml)
then that would clearly be related to the IPsecME WG. This means IESG
still needs to consider the document and decide whether it comes to
conclusion 2 or 3. I.e. the document will still be considered by the IESG.
Dan's question asked whether he can publish the RFC without it needing
to go through the IESG, and I think for this specific item the answer
is no, as there clearly is WG which this work is related to.
>> Is there a way to get an RFC published to update this registry that
>> does not need to go through the IESG? If not then the 2nd part is
>> the critical one; if so then we can just end this fiasco now.
I think it would be better (and faster) to solve this here and now,
than waste time through the independent submission stream.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
