IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan
conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Dirk Kutscher ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan@ietf.org,
    icnrg-chairs@ietf.org,
    irtf-chair@irtf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10

The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10 consistent
with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'ICN Adaptation to LoWPAN
Networks (ICN LoWPAN)'  as an Experimental
RFC.

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

The IESG would also like the IRTF 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-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Cenk Gündoğan for the following email:

-----

We had an iterated interaction with (to the best of my knowledge)
leading experts from 6lo.  Carsten Bormann provided crucial feedback in
a discussion round [1] during his IRSG evaluation [2] (a few follow-up
discussions happened off-list).  Amanda Baber from IANA requested
feedback from Pascal Thubert as a designated expert regarding the Paging
Dispatch [3] use.  Unfortunately, this correspondence was between
Amanda, Pascal, Carsten, Colin, and the draft authors, but not on the
public mailing list.

------

It addresses my previous DISCUSS ballot (even if I can only regret that the above discussion was not in public fora), copied below for archiving.

------ old discuss ------

Nevertheless, I am balloting a DISCUSS because it is unclear to me whether the
IETF 6LO WG should be at least be aware of this work. I browsed and searched
the 6LO mailing list without finding any interaction between the 6LO WG and the
ICN RG.

-------------

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Cenk Gündoğan for the following email:
-----
We had an iterated interaction with (to the best of my knowledge)
leading experts from 6lo.  Carsten Bormann provided crucial feedback in
a discussion round [1] during his IRSG evaluation [2] (a few follow-up
discussions happened off-list).  Amanda Baber from IANA requested
feedback from Pascal Thubert as a designated expert regarding the Paging
Dispatch [3] use.  Unfortunately, this correspondence was between
Amanda, Pascal, Carsten, Colin, and the draft authors, but not on the
public mailing list.
------

It addresses my previous DISCUSS ballot (even if I can only regret that the above discussion was not in public fora), copied below for archiving.
------ old discuss ------
> Nevertheless, I am balloting a DISCUSS because it is unclear to me whether the
> IETF 6LO WG should be at least be aware of this work. I browsed and searched
> the 6LO mailing list without finding any interaction between the 6LO WG and the
> ICN RG.
-------------

[Ballot discuss]
Interesting piece of work, so, kudos for the authors.

Nevertheless, I am balloting a DISCUSS because it is unclear to me whether the IETF 6LO WG should be at least be aware of this work. I browsed and searched the 6LO mailing list without finding any interaction between the 6LO WG and the ICN RG.

It is a small world, so, happy to be pointed to any email discussion on this apparent lack of coordination and even happier to clear my DISCUSS ballot.

Regards

-éric