IETF conflict review for draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience
conflict-review-song-yeti-testbed-experience-01

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Adrian Farrel ,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org,
    draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience@ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience-09

The IESG has completed a review of draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience-09
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Yeti DNS Testbed'
as an Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work, but this
relationship does not prevent publishing.

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-song-yeti-testbed-experience/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-yeti-testbed-experience/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
I had my position on this conflict review as a Discuss, not based on the proposed conflict review category response itself, but on whether the proposed IESG Note should be included as part of the response.

We've had enough Discussions about that in e-mail and elsewhere, that I'm changing to Yes, and trusting the responsible AD to do the right thing with feedback to the ISE.

For reference, my original Discuss follows.

I think this is the right conflict review response, so I should be a Yes about that, but the suggested IESG Note is making statements about what the document is missing (in the IESG's opinion) and whether the document will be useful (in the IESG's opinion), and those statements aren't in the spirit of the conflict reviews that we are asked to provide.

I'd be fine with including the suggested IESG Note in the datatracker for this draft, so to be clear, I'm only objecting because the IESG Note is included in this conflict review response.

[Ballot discuss]
I think this is the right conflict review response, so I should be a Yes about that, but the suggested IESG Note is making statements about what the document is missing (in the IESG's opinion) and whether the document will be useful (in the IESG's opinion), and those statements aren't in the spirit of the conflict reviews that we are asked to provide.

I'd be fine with including the suggested IESG Note in the datatracker for this draft, so to be clear, I'm only objecting because the IESG Note is included in this conflict review response.

[Ballot comment]
To be clear, while I do not object to this response as formulated, I support the ongoing conversation with the ISE regarding alternate changes to the document that would alleviate the concerns expressed in the proposed additional note.