Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment
conflict-review-hausenblas-csv-fragment-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-11-27
02 Cindy Morgan
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-07

The IESG has completed a review of draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-07
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'URI Fragment Identifiers
for the text/csv Media Type'  as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG asks that the following IESG note be attached to the document:
The change to the text/csv media type registration requires IESG
approval, as the IESG is the change controller for that registration.
The IESG has, after consultation with the IETF community, approved the
change, which is specified in Section 5 of this document.

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-hausenblas-csv-fragment/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2013-11-27
02 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the conflict review response
2013-11-27
02 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-11-27
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2013-11-27
02 Barry Leiba State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from Approved No Problem - point raised
2013-10-10
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved No Problem - point raised from IESG Evaluation
2013-10-10
02 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
With the Last Call, and the IESG Note, I am satisfied that this No Conflict is OK.
2013-10-10
02 Pete Resnick Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick
2013-10-10
02 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
With the Last Call, and the IESG Note, I am satisfied that this document is OK.
2013-10-10
02 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2013-10-10
02 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-hausenblas-csv-fragment-02.txt
2013-10-10
01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-10-10
01 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

Section 6 is pretty uninformative, which is a pity. Might be
a good test for whoever's tooling up to handle drafts
with 6982 …
[Ballot comment]

Section 6 is pretty uninformative, which is a pity. Might be
a good test for whoever's tooling up to handle drafts
with 6982 sections though:-)
2013-10-10
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-10-10
01 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-10-09
01 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
I apologize for the waffle. I think I still do want to DISCUSS this. The lynch pin of what I wrote below is …
[Ballot discuss]
I apologize for the waffle. I think I still do want to DISCUSS this. The lynch pin of what I wrote below is that we're OK updating an IETF registration to point to a non-IETF document. But we've never officially gotten buy-in from the IETF that *they* think this is the right way to to fragment identifiers. Are we willing to say that this is OK? I may go right back to YES on the call, but I want to DISCUSS.
2013-10-09
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Discuss from Yes
2013-10-09
01 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I previously noted that in light of the IANA comment [IANA #712726],the No Conflict message was not appropriate. After conversations with Barry, I …
[Ballot comment]
I previously noted that in light of the IANA comment [IANA #712726],the No Conflict message was not appropriate. After conversations with Barry, I now believe the following the following:

- An update to this registry requires IESG Review, either in the form of an IETF document (which would get IESG Review) or an overt action by the IESG.

- This document preserves entirely the existing registration. It simply adds "fragment identifier" information. The fragment identifier field was not available when the original IETF registration took place, so the present document is filling in a new blank.

- This document probably should have gone through IETF processing. However, the change to the registration is just to add fragment identifier semantics to the existing registration; it doesn't change the format at all. The document could have been published without updating the registry and it *clearly* would have been "No Conflict". So I think updating the registry to point to this method of using the fragment identifier is reasonable.

- We should decide the management item first to confirm that the IESG is OK with the registration update. Then, approving "No conflict" makes sense.

I think this is a one off. I think it's reasonable to let it through, assuming the rest of the IESG is on board with updating the registry entry.
2013-10-09
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2013-10-09
01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-10-09
01 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
The change to the text/csv media type registration requires separate IESG approval, as the IESG is the change controller for that registration.  I …
[Ballot comment]
The change to the text/csv media type registration requires separate IESG approval, as the IESG is the change controller for that registration.  I have requested a management item for that on the same telechat.  The updated text/csv registration template is in Section 5.1 of the document.
2013-10-09
01 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2013-10-09
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-10-09
01 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
The change to the text/csv media type registration requires separate IESG approval, as the IESG is the change controller for that registration.

RFC …
[Ballot comment]
The change to the text/csv media type registration requires separate IESG approval, as the IESG is the change controller for that registration.

RFC 4180, which this document updates, contains a completed media type registration template in Section 3.  This document should copy that template into a separate section (I suggest 5.1, in IANA Considerations), should say that this template updates the one in RFC 4180, and should update the template to conform to RFC 6838.  In doing so, it should fill in the (new) "fragment identifier considerations" and update the "security considerations" sections of the template.

After those changes are made, the IESG can approve the update to the text/csv registration as a management item on a telechat.
2013-10-09
01 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2013-10-09
01 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-hausenblas-csv-fragment-01.txt
2013-10-09
00 Benoît Claise [Ballot comment]
I'll trust Pete on that one.
2013-10-09
00 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-10-09
00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I agree with Pete.
2013-10-09
00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-10-09
00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot comment]
Pete has raised the point already.
2013-10-09
00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-10-08
00 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-10-08
00 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I agree with Pete's suggested conflict review text.
2013-10-08
00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-10-07
00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-10-07
00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-10-07
00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Pete's point seems valid.
2013-10-07
00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-10-04
00 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
In light of the IANA comment [IANA #712726], I think the No Conflict message is not appropriate. Instead, I suggest this should get …
[Ballot discuss]
In light of the IANA comment [IANA #712726], I think the No Conflict message is not appropriate. Instead, I suggest this should get response #4:

      The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
      for standards tree media type registrations and should therefore
      not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.
2013-10-04
00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-hausenblas-csv-fragment-00.txt
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba Removed telechat returning item indication
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba Telechat date has been changed to 2013-10-10 from 2013-09-26
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2013-09-25
00 Barry Leiba Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2013-09-18
00 Amy Vezza
Hi IESG Secretary:

The draft draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-04
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC …
Hi IESG Secretary:

The draft draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-04
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for this draft, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

Its abstract says:
"This memo defines URI fragment identifiers for text/csv MIME
entities. These fragment identifiers make it possible to refer to
parts of a text/csv MIME entity, identified by row, column, or cell.
Fragment identification can use single items, or ranges."

It was reviewed for me by Leigh Dodds,
the authors worked with him to address the issues he raised.

This draft asks to register a Media Type. I asked IANA about that,
they asked Ned Freed to review the request. Ned says the Media Types
Registry requires IESG approval.

Thanks, Nevil (ISE)
2013-09-18
00 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-09-26
2013-09-18
00 Amy Vezza IETF conflict review requested