IETF conflict review for draft-vandesompel-memento
conflict-review-vandesompel-memento-00

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

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

Barry Leiba Yes

Comment (2013-09-25)
No email
send info
Comment on the document:

The IANA Considerations section really needs to be fleshed out.  I suggest separate subsections for each of the four actions, which clearly separates them and allows you to say what needs to be said in a way that's clear to IANA.  I suggest that you be clear about which registry each item is being registered in (rather than saying "the appropriate IANA registry"), so that IANA doesn't have to guess, and perhaps guess wrong (it's bad news when things get put into the wrong registries).  And we can't just say, "IANA, stick this in that registry," because the registries generally have templates with which we provide the required registry information -- if it's just a name and a reference, being terse is OK, but when there are three or four or five columns in the registry table, we have to be careful to provide all the information.

For the first action, the registry you want is the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry, and the registration template is in RFC 3864, Section 4.2.1.

For the second action, it's the "Link Relation Types" registry, and the registration template is in RFC 5988, Section 6.2.1.

For the third and fourth actions, I think you're looking for the "Link Relation Application Data" registry, though I'm not entirely sure.  For that registry, the template is in RFC 5988, Section 6.3.  If you have questions about this, you can contact Mark Nottingham.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-07)
No email
send info
No objection, but building on Barry's point to ask about IANA Expert Review.
I know Mark has reviewed the document and is one of the designated experts for one of the registries.
It is not clear to me how the overlap of ISE and Expert Review works, and a note saying that the reviews have already been done would be comforting.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection