Ballot for conflict-review-nottingham-safe-hint
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
To be honest I really don't understand the process we apply here. The HTTP Preferences registry is "Specification Required", however, I thought we had a discussion a while ago that a draft is sufficient for this. This document clearly extends an IETF protocol and even though IETF consensus is not required for the registration, I really don't understand why this document is not published within the httpbis group (or as AD sponsored - also I don't think "the wg is to busy with other stuff" is a good argument for AD sponsorship).
Mark talked about earlier version of this document and I am glad that it is being published.
There are some good points in the existing Discuss/Abstain positions, that I won't repeat. Some general comments not specifically related to the conflict review response: it is probably a bit late to do anything about this, but the name "safe" seems incredibly generic and it's not entirely clear that this is the most appropriate usage to attach to such a generic term.
This is a good example of a document that I expect the broader public to confuse for an IETF consensus document that has the IETF's endorsement. So while it may not directly conflict with ongoing IETF work, I don't feel comfortable balloting no objection on the conflict review.