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

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering@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-pathsteering-07

The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Path Steering in CCNx and
NDN'  as an Experimental RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in
CC and SPRING WGs, 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-pathsteering/

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

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
- This documents claim of "state-of-the-art multipath congestion control algorithms", whether it can claims something like that by referencing a publication or not. (may be this should go to the ICCRG as a question or comment on the draft, let have a short discussion on this during telechat )

[Ballot comment]
While I share John's view that this seems to have some relation to spring - I don't feel its sufficient conflict to block the document.

As a further observation however, I think this document could use a glossary of terms or a definitions section to expand numerous acronyms in the document.  This would make the document far easier to parse :)

[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss
  - this documents claim of "state-of-the-art multipath congestion control algorithms", whether it can claims something like that by referencing a publication or not. (may be this should go to the ICCRG as a question or comment on the draft, let have a short discussion on this during telechat )
  - whether we should at CCWG as a related working group to this review.