Skip to main content

What's In A Name:Thoughts from the NSRG
draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 
         draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10.txt 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'What's In A 
Name:Thoughts from the NSRG' <draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10.txt> as an 
Informational 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=8140&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 Russ Housley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary
 
  Over the last few years, the use of IP addresses for Internet
  connectivity has changed dramatically.  The Name Space Research Group
  (NSRG) was chartered by the IRTF to review these changes, and make
  recommendations on whether or not remediation within the protocol
  stack is necessary.  This document reports the outcome of some of the
  discussions within the research group.

  One of the questions addressed by the NSRG is: Does the TCP/IP
  protocol suite need an additional level of naming above layer 3 but
  below the application layer?  There was no consensus on the answer.
  This document reviews the motivation for an additional naming
  mechanism, reviews related work, proposes a straw man "stack name" and
  discusses the structure and use of those names.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  The IRTF NSRG came to consensus on this document.
 
Protocol Quality
 
  This document was reviewed by Russell Housley for the IESG.

RFC Editor Note

  These editorial comments do not warrant further delay, but
  the IESG wants to point them out to aid the RFC Editor in
  preparing the final document.

  - fails ID-nits: (no ToC, references not split).  At least the latter 
    is pretty important to know at this stage, as some of those are 
    unpublished.

  - typos:
    s/questiones/questions/ (in the abstract)
    s/Austien/Austein/ (in acknowledgements)
    s/updateds/updates/ (in sect 2.1)
    s/the draft/this memo/ (in sect 2.2) -- if that's the intent?
    s/indirection/indirection./ in sect 2.3
    s/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02.txt// in sect 2.3
    s/a V4/an IPv4/ (in sect 3.2.1)

  - general nits: (in many places) should probably use 'node'
    instead of 'host'

RFC Editor Note