IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites
conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites-01
Yes
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)
No Objection
Erik Kline
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Robert Wilton)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Erik Kline
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-10-21 for -00)
Sent
I am ok with the assessment, but I would be more comfortable with the standard response: The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the rmt, tsvwg, quic, and dtn WGs, but this relationship does not prevent publishing. The current wording seems to imply a closer relationship. [Maybe it's time for the IESG to talk about deviations from rfc5742 again.]
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-10-21 for -00)
Sent
To the IESG: We do have some documents from rtcweb/payload/etc. that implement linear FEC schemes of various sorts; should they be listed as related work as well? To the authors: The document seems to only mention end-to-end encryption once, in the context of such applications based on UDP (ยง3.4), but end-to-end encryption is also prevalent for TCP flows. It might be interesting to have some general discussion of when FEC schemes can/cannot be applied to flows that are encrypted end-to-end. I guess it probably goes without saying that any communications going over a satellite link must be presumed easy to eavesdrop on, and thus that the application using such a link has an onus to apply any cryptographic protection deemed necessary for such situations.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Not sent