IETF conflict review for draft-deng-pcp-ddns
conflict-review-deng-pcp-ddns-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-deng-pcp-ddns@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-deng-pcp-ddns-06

The IESG has completed a review of draft-deng-pcp-ddns-06 consistent with
RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Using Port Control
Protocol (PCP) to update dynamic DNS'  as an
Informational RFC.


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

The IESG would also like the RFC-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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-deng-pcp-ddns/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deng-pcp-ddns/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
Several ADs asked me to include these comments in my ballot position:

FYI, I'm still discussing with the DNSOP chairs and AD whether this ought to be a DNSOP item, but IMHO there is no reasonable basis for the IESG to make a stronger statement than that this is work DNSOP could be doing.  I don't think we have any reason to object to the work going through the ISE if the authors and the ISE choose to do it that way.

The AD and chairs don't have strong opinions on this, but there seems to be some agreement in principle that the authors could try again to take it to the working group (they tried and failed around IETF 87).  Given that the discussion is ongoing, I hadn't thought it made sense to issue a ballot yet, but Jari pointed out that there's actually no harm in doing so, since our position on this is advisory anyway: the discussion can continue even after the IESG has issued an opinion.

[Ballot comment]
I think this document could have been published also from the DNSOP WG. And perhaps some additional review would be welcome still. In any case, I have no problem publishing the document as an RFC either in the RFC Editor or IETF streams.

[Ballot comment]
Given Ted's email comments, I'm OK with this.  Ted, you might consider putting a version of those comments into your ballot, so they're on record in the datatracker.