IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-samrg-common-api
conflict-review-irtf-samrg-common-api-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-12-08
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to lars@netapp.com, draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org from "Lars Eggert" <lars@netapp.com>, draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Lars Eggert" , draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Lars Eggert" , draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-10 The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-10 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'A Common API for Transparent Hybrid Multicast' as an Experimental RFC. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. The IESG would also like the IRTF 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-irtf-samrg-common-api/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-samrg-common-api/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2013-10-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2013-10-10
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-10-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-10-10
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-10-10
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-10-09
|
03 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-10-09
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-10-09
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-10-09
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-10-08
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-10-08
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-10-07
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-10-07
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Once again, thanks very much to the document authors for working with me on the URI issues. They have been resolved, and this … [Ballot comment] Once again, thanks very much to the document authors for working with me on the URI issues. They have been resolved, and this version is, indeed, ready to publish in the IRTF stream. |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Brian Haberman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Brian Haberman | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Brian Haberman | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-10-10 from 2013-05-30 |
2013-10-04
|
03 | Brian Haberman | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-samrg-common-api-03.txt |
2013-10-04
|
02 | Brian Haberman | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-samrg-common-api-02.txt |
2013-10-04
|
01 | Brian Haberman | State changed to AD Review from Approved Request to Not Publish - announcement sent |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Lars Eggert" , draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Lars Eggert" , draft-irtf-samrg-common-api@tools.ietf.org, buford@samrg.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-08 The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-08 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG recommends that 'A Common API for Transparent Hybrid Multicast' NOT be published as an Experimental RFC. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. IESG NOTE: Specifically, the document appears to propose incompatible extensions to URIs: using URIs with unregistered schemes (ip: and sha-2:, for example) and using registered schemes, such as sip: and reload:, in ways they were not intended to be used and that deployed software would not support. This document seems to be overloading URIs to make them serve as multicast group names, and overloading URI schemes to serve as namespaces in the proposed SAM system. Having identifiers that look like URIs but have different semantics and are used in different ways, is a very bad approach and is likely to cause serious breakage as those identifiers become intermixed with and indistinguishable from true URIs that applications expect to dereference. The IESG would also like the IRTF 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-irtf-samrg-common-api/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-samrg-common-api/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved Request to Not Publish - announcement sent from Approved Request to Not Publish - announcement to be sent |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved Request to Not Publish - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-05-30
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-05-29
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-05-29
|
01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-05-29
|
01 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-05-28
|
01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-05-28
|
01 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot discuss] I don't see this as a problem to be addressed necessarily but I'd like to discuss it. Overlay/encapsulation/upper -layer multicast applications fundamentally have … [Ballot discuss] I don't see this as a problem to be addressed necessarily but I'd like to discuss it. Overlay/encapsulation/upper -layer multicast applications fundamentally have no recourse to congestion control yet they they exist because the infrastructure to support (lower layer) multicast does not on among other things the general internet. We assume for the sake of argument (shallowly I believe) that organizations using native multicast transport know what they're doing but the same does not apply imho to overlays or upper layer multicast. this is a problem that the iesg consider a liability with: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast that I don't think is entirely mollified by the research nature of of the publication. |
2013-05-28
|
01 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-05-28
|
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-05-26
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I think this is the right conflict review response. Reading the document, I am slightly confused: this work, which says that it is … [Ballot comment] I think this is the right conflict review response. Reading the document, I am slightly confused: this work, which says that it is most efficient to handle multicast at the lowest layer possible, seems to stop at the IP layer. Why do you not consider lower layers as well? Or perhaps add the word "Packet" to the title etc. |
2013-05-26
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-05-22
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-05-22
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-05-22
|
01 | Brian Haberman | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-samrg-common-api-01.txt |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | Removed telechat returning item indication |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-05-30 from 2013-05-16 |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2013-05-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-samrg-common-api-00.txt |
2013-05-16
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2013-05-16
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Brian Haberman |
2013-05-07
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Hi, IESG secretary (BCC'ed), this is a request for the IESG to perform an RFC5742 review of draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-08 from the SAMRG, to be published as … Hi, IESG secretary (BCC'ed), this is a request for the IESG to perform an RFC5742 review of draft-irtf-samrg-common-api-08 from the SAMRG, to be published as an Experimental RFC on the IRTF Stream. This document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/50 for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, John Buford (buford@samrg.org). Thanks, Lars |
2013-05-07
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-05-16 |
2013-05-07
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IETF conflict review requested |