IETF conflict review for draft-seantek-windows-image
conflict-review-seantek-windows-image-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: draft-seantek-windows-image@ietf.org,
    "Nevil Brownlee" ,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org,
    "Nevil Brownlee"
Cc: "The IESG" ,
    iana@iana.org,
    "IETF-Announce"
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-seantek-windows-image-02

The IESG has completed a review of draft-seantek-windows-image-02
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Windows Image Media
Types'  as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-seantek-windows-image/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seantek-windows-image/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]

- Barry's comment confuses me. I don't see why we're binding together an ISE
document with later IESG approval of media-types. Are we being perhaps too
process-clever here? The downside here is I'm not sure what I'm being asked
about nor if I like predicting that the DE won't think there's an issue with these.
What happens if the IESG approve this now but issues turn up later?

- It seems odd that nobody from msft appears to be involved here. I hope they
don't mind that Sean is doing their archaeology for them.

- Thanks for the mention of MICE! I wondered if you'd cover that and it is
definitely noteworthy. The other security considerations also seem to me
to be noticeably better than is normal for such registrations. Good job!

[Ballot comment]
For Standards-Tree registration in the Independent Stream, the IESG has to explicitly approve the registration requests.  In this case, I would like to make that approval contingent upon approval by the media-types experts, which I have not yet seen.  I (or my successor) will put a management item on a telechat to make that approval only after the ISE or IANA gets the OK from the DEs.  I don't imagine that that will be much of a problem, though it might entail some document revisions.

Sean did start some discussion of this on the media-types list, but it was a long time ago (October 2014), and did not end in resolution.