IETF conflict review for draft-vandesompel-memento
conflict-review-vandesompel-memento-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-vandesompel-memento@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-vandesompel-memento-11

The IESG has completed a review of draft-vandesompel-memento-11
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'HTTP framework for
time-based access to resource states -- Memento'
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-vandesompel-memento/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-memento/

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

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot discuss]

I'm just wondering if the httpbis wg have looked at this and if not,
why that's ok?

I see two mails in my local archive for httpbis annoucing drafts
(in may 2012 and may 2013) but no reaction at all so its not
clear to me if there would or would not be objections to this
from the wg.

[Ballot comment]
No objection, but building on Barry's point to ask about IANA Expert Review.
I know Mark has reviewed the document and is one of the designated experts for one of the registries.
It is not clear to me how the overlap of ISE and Expert Review works, and a note saying that the reviews have already been done would be comforting.

[Ballot comment]
Comment on the document:

The IANA Considerations section really needs to be fleshed out.  I suggest separate subsections for each of the four actions, which clearly separates them and allows you to say what needs to be said in a way that's clear to IANA.  I suggest that you be clear about which registry each item is being registered in (rather than saying "the appropriate IANA registry"), so that IANA doesn't have to guess, and perhaps guess wrong (it's bad news when things get put into the wrong registries).  And we can't just say, "IANA, stick this in that registry," because the registries generally have templates with which we provide the required registry information -- if it's just a name and a reference, being terse is OK, but when there are three or four or five columns in the registry table, we have to be careful to provide all the information.

For the first action, the registry you want is the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry, and the registration template is in RFC 3864, Section 4.2.1.

For the second action, it's the "Link Relation Types" registry, and the registration template is in RFC 5988, Section 6.2.1.

For the third and fourth actions, I think you're looking for the "Link Relation Application Data" registry, though I'm not entirely sure.  For that registry, the template is in RFC 5988, Section 6.3.  If you have questions about this, you can contact Mark Nottingham.

Hi IESG Secretary:

The draft draft-vandesompel-memento-09
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

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

Its abstract says:
"The HTTP-based Memento framework bridges the present and past Web. It
facilitates obtaining representations of prior states of a given
resource by introducing datetime negotiation and TimeMaps. Datetime
negotiation is a variation on content negotiation that leverages the
given resource's URI and a user agent's preferred datetime. TimeMaps
are lists that enumerate URIs of resources that encapsulate prior
states of the given resource. The framework also facilitates
recognizing a resource that encapsulates a frozen prior state of
another resource."

It was reviewed for me by Mark Nottingham,
Its author, Herbert VandeSempel continues to work on it.


Thanks, Nevil (ISE)