[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPsec re-defining IP-in-IP? (Fwd)




JI,

Someone forwarded me mail from you, which references a message
from Dave Johnson, and discusses RFC 2003.

>In <1352.892162945@ux6.sp.cs.cmu.edu> (message from Dave Johnson on
>Thu, 09 Apr 1998 19:02:25 -0400), Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu> writes: 
>
>                                                   If there are 
> some minor revisions that can be made to 2003, please let us (the
> Mobile IP Working Group, who defined 2003) know about it.

I strongly support Dave's remarks.

> I was surprised to notice that there were no references to any of that
> work in rfc2003 (for example, my Sigcomm'91 paper (joint paper with
> Maguire and Duchamp), my winter Usenix'93 paper (joint paper with
> Maguire), my 4th Usenix Security symposium paper (joint paper with
> Blaze), not to mention my 1993 PhD thesis!).
> 
> This omission is particularly surprising in light of the fact that the
> editor of 2003 is Charlie Perkins, who has been very familiar with
> my work since at least 1990, and other members of the MobileIP working
> group would also have been expected to have known about it.

The omission was not intentional.  And, yes, since your work with
Dan and Chip formed the original nucleus from which the Mobile IP
working group was developed, there were a number of people familiar
with it.  Unfortunately, during the months of review and even
including some extraordinary commentary during IETF last call,
no one noticed the omission you point out.

> I'm mentioning all this because the IETF community traditionally has
> been very careful to give credit where credit is due and to reference
> the work upon which protocols are based (to rfc2003's credit, rfc1853
> by Bill Simpson *is* referenced (which, in turn, does reference the
> Sigcomm and the swIPe papers), as is rfc1826, which references
> RFC1825, which references the swIPe paper). I trust that when the
> mobile-ip protocols move to the next stage of the standardization
> process, care will be taken to ensure that proper references are
> made. I will be happy to supply all the citations that I'm aware of.

I certainly do agree with the tradition of giving credit where credit
is due, and you may be aware that I have cited your papers numerous
times in other publications.  However, I also note that the purpose of
citation in RFC is more to serve the purpose of illustration and
providing fuller understanding, than to establish priority.

Thanks for offering to supply the citations.  Perhaps the best thing
would be to post them during any review during the next stage of
standardization.  I already have most of the citations available
online, but posting them during the review will have the additional
benefit of allowing comments from other working group members about
the subject.

Regards,
Charlie P.