Skip to main content

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 K├╝hlewind 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.