IETF conflict review for draft-google-self-published-geofeeds
conflict-review-google-self-published-geofeeds-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-04-22
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: draft-google-self-published-geofeeds@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org Cc: The IESG , … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: draft-google-self-published-geofeeds@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org Cc: The IESG , IETF-Announce , iana@iana.org Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-google-self-published-geofeeds-09 The IESG has completed a review of draft-google-self-published-geofeeds-09 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'A Format for Self-published IP Geolocation Feeds' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the GEOPRIV WG (now closed), 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-google-self-published-geofeeds/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-google-self-published-geofeeds/ The process for such documents is described at https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2020-04-22
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2020-04-22
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-04-22
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2020-01-27
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from Approved No Problem - point raised |
2020-01-24
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | New version available: conflict-review-google-self-published-geofeeds-01.txt |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - point raised from IESG Evaluation |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] IESG discussion indicated we want to be clear on that GEOPRIV is closed in the response. |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I think the reply is fine but I agree that we could add the word "concluded" or something. However, I wonder why this … [Ballot comment] I think the reply is fine but I agree that we could add the word "concluded" or something. However, I wonder why this work went to ISE. I guess we could have published this in the IETF as "Google's Geofeed Format" or something. Was that considered/discussed anywhere? |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] I think it is quite bad form to indicate that it relates to work (implied ongoing) when it is in fact not happening … [Ballot discuss] I think it is quite bad form to indicate that it relates to work (implied ongoing) when it is in fact not happening anymore. What do we do to modify the reply so that it doesn't imply that. In which way are the closed WG's work related to a conflict assessment between this document and any IETF work? |
2020-01-23
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Yes to the conflict-review response. Additional comments are for the authors. If this was an IETF-stream document, we'd have to document the "known … [Ballot comment] Yes to the conflict-review response. Additional comments are for the authors. If this was an IETF-stream document, we'd have to document the "known flaws or omissions" that the shepherd writeup alludes to, e.g., in the Introduction and/or Abstract. Section 2.1 Feeds MUST use UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding. Text after a '#' character is treated as a comment only and ignored. Blank lines are similarly ignored. Comments are ignored only to the end of the current line, I trust. (What's the line separator?) Section 3.4 As a publisher can change geolocation data at any time and without notification, consumers SHOULD implement mechanisms to periodically refresh local copies of feed data. In the absence of any other refresh timing information, it is recommended that consumers SHOULD refresh feeds no less often than weekly. And presumably not so often that it causes excessive load/traffic, either. Section 8.1 To date, geolocation feeds have been shared informally in the form of HTTPS URIs exchanged in email threads. The two example URIs documented above describe networks that change locations periodically, the operators and operational practices of which are well known within their respective technical communities. Er, which two URIs are those, again? Section 11.2 RFC 4180 feels kind of normative ot me, and perhaps 5952 as well. Appendix A A clearer separation between the two code files might be helpful (e.g., separate BEGIN/END CODE markers). |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] No objection, although there should probably be an annotation along the lines of "...the (now closed) GEOPRIV working group..." |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-01-22
|
00 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Recuse - author. |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Note (for the IESG) that the GEOPRIV WG closed in 2014. |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | New version available: conflict-review-google-self-published-geofeeds-00.txt |
2020-01-21
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2020-01-13
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-01-23 |
2020-01-12
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | IETF conflict review requested |