IETF conflict review for draft-nottingham-safe-hint
conflict-review-nottingham-safe-hint-04
Discuss
Yes
(Adam Roach)
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2019-05-02 for -00)
Sent
To be honest I really don't understand the process we apply here. The HTTP Preferences registry is "Specification Required", however, I thought we had a discussion a while ago that a draft is sufficient for this. This document clearly extends an IETF protocol and even though IETF consensus is not required for the registration, I really don't understand why this document is not published within the httpbis group (or as AD sponsored - also I don't think "the wg is to busy with other stuff" is a good argument for AD sponsorship).
Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-04-25 for -00)
Not sent
Mark talked about earlier version of this document and I am glad that it is being published.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Sent for earlier
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-05-02 for -00)
Sent
There are some good points in the existing Discuss/Abstain positions, that I won't repeat. Some general comments not specifically related to the conflict review response: it is probably a bit late to do anything about this, but the name "safe" seems incredibly generic and it's not entirely clear that this is the most appropriate usage to attach to such a generic term.
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
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2019-05-01 for -00)
Sent
This is a good example of a document that I expect the broader public to confuse for an IETF consensus document that has the IETF's endorsement. So while it may not directly conflict with ongoing IETF work, I don't feel comfortable balloting no objection on the conflict review.