IETF conflict review for draft-mme-trill-fcoe
conflict-review-mme-trill-fcoe-01

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-mme-trill-fcoe@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-mme-trill-fcoe-05

The IESG has completed a review of draft-mme-trill-fcoe-05 consistent
with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'FCoE over TRILL'
as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
trill, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.


The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor 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-mme-trill-fcoe/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mme-trill-fcoe/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
The working group have been asked again about this draft and it is clear that there is no TRILL WG interest in working on this technology.

Thank you for consulting them again.

[Ballot discuss]
I am not convinced that the WG properly discussed whether they wanted to work on this. Please see minutes of the meeting at which it was brought to their attention.

[Ballot comment]
I feel that I need to know why this is an independent draft rather than a Trill draft before I am in a position to take a position on whether this is a conflict or not.

[Ballot comment]
My Comments are by way of a mutter that I hope the ISE will note and
consider for future documents on the Independent Stream. No action from
the IESG or the document authors is requested.

---

The ISE's note says:
> This draft was discussed on the trill list, no objections
> to the publication of this draft in the Independent Stream
> were raised.

This is probably a little simplistic. It is true that the WG was
notified of the existence of the draft and offered the chance to
object to publication. But the I-D was not discussed in any sense.
There are a total of 3 emails about the draft in the archive and
they are all notifications from the authors.

---

While I don't disapprove of publication of this I-D on the Independent
Stream, I have become accustomed to notes explaining why documents are
presented via the ISE rather than through the working group.