IETF conflict review for draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate
conflict-review-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-00
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-12-23
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate@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-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate@tools.ietf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-03 The IESG has completed a review of draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-03 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'A method for mitigating namespace 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 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-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2013-12-23
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2013-12-23
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-23
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2013-12-19
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2013-12-19
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-12-19
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Richard as well. If the author's up for it. I don't tihnk I've seen such a short document not recommend … [Ballot comment] I agree with Richard as well. If the author's up for it. I don't tihnk I've seen such a short document not recommend itself so often. Well done! But why not add more? You could add that to sections 4 and 6 as well:-) |
2013-12-19
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Richard makes a valid point. |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-18
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-12-17
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot comment] FWIW, my preference would have been for this document to have been AD-sponsored. I realize that this is not a recommended technique (as … [Ballot comment] FWIW, my preference would have been for this document to have been AD-sponsored. I realize that this is not a recommended technique (as the abstract notes), but if we had it in the IETF stream, we could at least say, "There was IETF consensus that this was worth documenting, and it is not recommended." |
2013-12-17
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-17
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-12-16
|
00 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-12-16
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-15
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop, it was not discussed there that I can recall, nor is there active work in … [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop, it was not discussed there that I can recall, nor is there active work in the area of collision mitigation that this conflicts with that I am aware of. |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop, it was not discussed there that I can recall, nor is there active work in … [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop, it was not discussed there that I can recall, nor is there active work in the area of collision mitigation that this conflicts with. |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop it was not dicussed there that I can recall nor is there active work in … [Ballot comment] While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop it was not dicussed there that I can recall nor is there active work in thare of collisio mitigation that this conflicts with. |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop it was not dicussed there that I can recall nor is there active work in thare of … While this draft was presumably targeted at dnsop it was not dicussed there that I can recall nor is there active work in thare of collisio mitigation that this conflicts with. |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | New version available: conflict-review-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-00.txt |
2013-12-02
|
00 | Jari Arkko | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-12-19 from 2013-12-05 |
2013-12-02
|
00 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2013-12-02
|
00 | Jari Arkko | Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2013-11-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The draft draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-03 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The … The draft draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-03 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 title is: A method for mitigating namespace collisions Its abstract says: "This document outlines a possible, but not recommended, method to mitigate the effect of collisions in the DNS namespace by providing a means for end users to disambiguate the conflict." It was reviewed for me by Bob Braden and Brian Carpenter the author has addressed the issues they raised. Background: When Warren Kumari submitted this to me, he said ... "10,000 ft overview: Namespace collisions are becoming an increasingly large area of concern -- these are things like someone using www.corp internally, and then the .corp TLD gets delegated. I was concerned that someone might "invent" and patent the ideas that the draft discusses. While I do not think that the ideas described are actually *useful*, I do think that if *anyone* tries it, *everyone* should be free to try it… So, I wrote it up in an ID, and published it to establish prior art / for defensive purposes / to prevent annoying patents. I then asked on the Working Groups chairs list if this is an "acceptable" use of the ID process -- consensus seems to be that it it, but it was also suggested that I ask for this to be published as an Independent Submission doc." I feel that this is a useful document, although it really only says "Don't try this stuff!" Thanks, Nevil (ISE) -- Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org |
2013-11-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-05 |
2013-11-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IETF conflict review requested |