IETF conflict review for draft-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate
conflict-review-wkumari-dnsop-defense-collision-mitigate-00

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

[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:-)

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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