The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
RFC 5320

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

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: 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      therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval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.