IETF conflict review for draft-deng-pcp-ddns
conflict-review-deng-pcp-ddns-00

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2014-09-18)
No email
send info
I think this document could have been published also from the DNSOP WG. And perhaps some additional review would be welcome still. In any case, I have no problem publishing the document as an RFC either in the RFC Editor or IETF streams.

(Ted Lemon) Yes

Comment (2014-09-18)
No email
send info
Several ADs asked me to include these comments in my ballot position:

FYI, I'm still discussing with the DNSOP chairs and AD whether this ought to be a DNSOP item, but IMHO there is no reasonable basis for the IESG to make a stronger statement than that this is work DNSOP could be doing.   I don't think we have any reason to object to the work going through the ISE if the authors and the ISE choose to do it that way.

The AD and chairs don't have strong opinions on this, but there seems to be some agreement in principle that the authors could try again to take it to the working group (they tried and failed around IETF 87).   Given that the discussion is ongoing, I hadn't thought it made sense to issue a ballot yet, but Jari pointed out that there's actually no harm in doing so, since our position on this is advisory anyway: the discussion can continue even after the IESG has issued an opinion.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2014-09-17)
No email
send info
... and presumably PCP?

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-09-17)
No email
send info
Given Ted's email comments, I'm OK with this.  Ted, you might consider putting a version of those comments into your ballot, so they're on record in the datatracker.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection