IETF conflict review for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto
conflict-review-crocker-email-deliveredto-01

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Adrian Farrel ,
    draft-crocker-email-deliveredto@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-09

The IESG has completed a review of draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-09
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Delivered-To Email Header
Field'  as an Experimental RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the
EMAILCORE WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-crocker-email-deliveredto/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-email-deliveredto/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
I am sympathetic to Alvaro's position as this work is obviously related to "e-mail related" work at the IETF (existing or closed WG). This of course does not prevent publication but would deserve a note in the conflict resolution.

But, I am also ambivalent since all ISE documents probably relate to RFC 791 or RFC 8200...

-éric

[Ballot comment]
I am sympathetic to Alvaro's position as this work obviously related to mail related work at the IETF (existing or closed WG). This of course does not prevent publication but would deserve a note in the conflict resolution.

But, I am also ambivalent since all ISE documents probably relate to RFC 791 or RFC 8200...

-éric

[Ballot discuss]
I don't think the conflict response is the right one.  Judging from the history of this document, including the discussion on both emailcore and the old smtpext (ietf-snmp) lists, the content of this draft is related to IETF work.

If there's no issue with publication, option #2 seems to be a better fit:

  2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
      in WG , but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

There may not be a WG specifically chartered for this work, but there certainly are related ones.  I also noted that the SMTP spec (rfc5321) was published as "individual in app area", so a general mention of the ART area may be appropriate.