Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute
conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-08-15
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute@ietf.org,
  …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute@ietf.org,
    icnrg-chairs@ietf.org,
    ietf@dkutscher.net,
    irtf-chair@irtf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-10

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

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'ICN Traceroute Protocol
Specification'  as an Experimental RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WGs IPPM
and INTAREA, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

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-icntraceroute/

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

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2023-08-15
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2023-08-15
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-08-15
01 Amy Vezza Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2023-08-10
01 Cindy Morgan Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2023-08-10
01 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS.
2023-08-10
01 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Duke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-08-10
01 Lars Eggert New version available: conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-01.txt
2023-08-10
00 Lars Eggert Shepherding AD changed to Lars Eggert
2023-08-10
00 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-08-09
00 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-08-09
00 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-08-09
00 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot comment]
Supporting Martin's discuss and I think this conflict review should at least indicate IPPM as related working group.
2023-08-09
00 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-08-08
00 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
ICN Ping and Traceroute seem to be quite similar. I am filing a DISCUSS to synchronize the conflict reviews so that they have …
[Ballot discuss]
ICN Ping and Traceroute seem to be quite similar. I am filing a DISCUSS to synchronize the conflict reviews so that they have a consistent posture.
2023-08-08
00 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-08-07
00 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-08-05
00 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-08-04
00 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-08-02
00 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-08-01
00 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Beside using BCP14 w/o the right template for an experimental protocol ;-)

I would also have cited IPPM & INTAREA as related IETF …
[Ballot comment]
Beside using BCP14 w/o the right template for an experimental protocol ;-)

I would also have cited IPPM & INTAREA as related IETF WG (cfr conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icnping-00).

But, indeed the core conflict review status is: no conflict with IETF work.
2023-08-01
00 Éric Vyncke Ballot comment text updated for Éric Vyncke
2023-08-01
00 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Beside using BCP14 w/o the right template for an experimental protocol ;-)

I would also have cited IPPM & INTAREA as related IETF …
[Ballot comment]
Beside using BCP14 w/o the right template for an experimental protocol ;-)

I would also have cited IPPM & INTAREA as related IETF WG (cfr conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icnping-00).
2023-08-01
00 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-07-19
00 Roman Danyliw Telechat date has been changed to 2023-08-10 from 2023-07-13
2023-07-19
00 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-07-19
00 Roman Danyliw Created "Approve" ballot
2023-07-19
00 Roman Danyliw Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2023-07-19
00 Roman Danyliw New version available: conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-00.txt
2023-07-13
00 Cindy Morgan Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2023-07-13
00 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2023-07-11
00 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-07-13
2023-07-11
00 Colin Perkins IETF conflict review requested