IETF conflict review for draft-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report
conflict-review-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: draft-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report@ietf.org,
    "Nevil Brownlee" ,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: "The IESG" ,
    iana@iana.org,
    "IETF-Announce"
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report-05

The IESG has completed a review of
draft-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report-05 consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Report from the Workshop
and Prize on Root Causes and Mitigation of Name Collisions'
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-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomas-namecollisions-workshop-report/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]

Useful document, thanks.

I couldn't see the list of participants at [1]. I did see the list
of speakers and ctte members there, so maybe that was the
same?

[1] http://namecollisions.net/

It's a bit of a toss up as to which of the first two categories this falls into. There is work done in dnsop / dnsext  and indeed in the iab stream (e.g. rfc 2826), that said given rfc 2860 the question of where responsibility for related work is derived from comes into play and imho this is operation of the root zone so I am going to assert that this is no conflict rather than related but not conflicting.