Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-snell-additional-link-relations
conflict-review-snell-additional-link-relations-00

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-12-17
00 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-snell-additional-link-relations@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-snell-additional-link-relations@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-snell-additional-link-relations-06

The IESG has completed a review of
draft-snell-additional-link-relations-06 consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Additional Link Relation
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 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-snell-additional-link-relations/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snell-additional-link-relations/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2012-12-17
00 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2012-12-17
00 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-12-17
00 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2012-12-13
00 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2012-12-13
00 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]


I think it really ought to be clear if the privacy-policy
relation type has any relationship with P3P [1] and that it
might …
[Ballot comment]


I think it really ought to be clear if the privacy-policy
relation type has any relationship with P3P [1] and that it
might be nice to ask W3C if they have any opinions on
that.

  [1] http://www.w3.org/P3P/
2012-12-13
00 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-12-13
00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
For the author and ISE...

The Abstract could probably not be any more vague!
"a number", "a variety of purposes"

Surprised that there …
[Ballot comment]
For the author and ISE...

The Abstract could probably not be any more vague!
"a number", "a variety of purposes"

Surprised that there are no security considerations for Terms of Service
2012-12-13
00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-12-12
00 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-12-12
00 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-12-12
00 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-12-12
00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-12-12
00 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-12-12
00 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-12-11
00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-12-11
00 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-12-11
00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-12-11
00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-12-11
00 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
For the author: Shouldn't s9 be Normative References?
2012-12-11
00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-12-10
00 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-snell-additional-link-relations-00.txt
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2012-12-10
00 Barry Leiba Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2012-12-10
00 Cindy Morgan
The three drafts
draft-wilde-profile-link-04
draft-snell-additional-link-relations-06
draft-ioseb-dzmanashvili-link-relation-08

are ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review them, as set out in RFC …
The three drafts
draft-wilde-profile-link-04
draft-snell-additional-link-relations-06
draft-ioseb-dzmanashvili-link-relation-08

are ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review them, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for these drafts, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

These three drafts are 'supporting documentation' for IANA requests
to register new codepoints in the Link Relations registry.

They have been reviewed by Julian Reschke and Jan Algermissen,
the Designated Experts for that Registry.

Although they came from Apps Area, the WG chairs and ADs have
said they should be published in the Independent Stream.

(I also have a fourth draft in process that also wants to register
a Link Relations codepoint, but that is not yet ready.)

Thanks, Nevil

--
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
2012-12-10
00 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-12-13
2012-12-10
00 Cindy Morgan IETF conflict review requested