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

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: draft-irtf-icnrg-scenarios@tools.ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org, dirk.kutscher@neclab.eu
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-scenarios-03

The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-icnrg-scenarios-03
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Information-centric
Networking: Baseline Scenarios'  as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done across
several IETF areas, including in the CDNI, DMM, and DTN working groups,
but that 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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-scenarios/

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

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743 

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
I suspect that the work discussed in this document is actually related to many other WGs beyond CDNI, DMM, and DTN, and I find the selection of those three a bit curious. I don't object to the conflict review response, but it would probably be more accurate if it were more generic rather than listing those three specific WGs.

[Ballot comment]

I just skimmed this, but it's an area I know a little about, though
I've not done with on this in the last year or so.  Seems like a
pretty useful document with a great set of references. I've just a
nit and a suggestion. Both are fine to ignore really.

- The various "ICN is an attractive candidate solution for..."
statements don't read well, since the point here is partly to test
if that thesis is valid.

- The problem of authotization in ICNs is mentioned a couple of
times, but I would assert that that could form a useful 3.4 section
of its own. Most ICN approaches have significant issues with
handling access to information that is not fully public and that
could be a useful way to judge between approaches.