IETF conflict review for draft-pantos-http-live-streaming
conflict-review-pantos-http-live-streaming-01
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Adam Roach)
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2017-05-04 for -00)
Unknown
A few comments/questions on the draft itself: - The draft contains the following addition to the copyright notice: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.” While this is up to the ISE to decide, it seems like that notice may preclude publication as an RFC. - I am concerned at the lack of a privacy discussion in the draft. Authors, please consider adding a privacy consideration section to address questions like the following: What can an on-path third party (e.g. an ISP) learn about the media consumption habits of a person using this mechanism? Can that be mitigated? If so, how? - application/vnd.apple.mpegurl is already registered. This appears to be an update to that registration. Has (or will) this update go through the expert review required for the registration of vendor-tree media types?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-05-10 for -00)
Unknown
I agree with Ben that the updated MIME registration template should go through MIME expert reviewer. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the new template, so this shouldn't be a problem.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-05-11)
Unknown
Sounds like we have a resolution regarding the copyright notice, thanks.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-05-10 for -00)
Unknown
I don't object to the final result of the relationship to the work not preventing publication. However, the text is not one of the rfc5742 options; I don't think we need to qualify the relationship, it either is related or it isn't.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-05-10 for -00)
Unknown
I agree with Ben's comment that the following statement does not seems to be compatible with the IETF copyright: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft."
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00)
Unknown