Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for January 8, 2009 Telechat

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Is it possible to send us the proposed charter text for netconf and  
ippm?  I don't have any particular concerns about rechartering these  
groups, but I would be willing to look over the text.

Margaret

On Jan 4, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> Please find below the preliminary agenda of the 1/8 IESG telechat.
> Please send me comments or questions about the relevant documents  
> until
> Wednesday 1/7 COB.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf  
> Of
> IESG Secretary
> S
>
> 2.1 WG Submissions
> 2.1.1 New Item
>  o draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-05.txt
>    Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS (Proposed Standard) - 1
> of
> 3
>    Token: Ross Callon
>  o draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05.txt
>    A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies
>    (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3
>    Token: Cullen Jennings
>  o draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-03.txt
>    Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3
>    Token: David Ward
>
> 2.1.2 Returning Item
>  o draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt
>    Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
> Message
>    Specification (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
>    Token: Tim Polk
>  o draft-ietf-smime-3850bis-08.txt
>    Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
>    Certificate Handling (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
>    Token: Tim Polk
>
>
> 2.2 Individual Submissions
> 2.2.1 New Item
> NONE
> 2.2.2 Returning Item
>  o draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06.txt
>    IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream
> Submissions
>    (BCP) - 1 of 1
>    Note: Diff: http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/rfc3932bisdiff.html
>    Token: Jari Arkko
>
>
> 3. Document Actions
>
> 3.1 WG Submissions
> 	Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
> reasonable
> 	contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it
> covers? If
> 	not, what changes would make it so?"
>
> 3.1.1 New Item
>  o draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02.txt
>    DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
>    (Informational) - 1 of 2
>    Token: Tim Polk
>  o draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01.txt
>    Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement (Informational) - 2
> of
> 2
>    Token: Lars Eggert
>
> 3.1.2 Returning Item
>  o draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06.txt
>    The RPF Vector TLV (Informational) - 1 of 1
>    Token: David Ward
>
>
> 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
> 	Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
> reasonable
> 	contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it
> covers? If
> 	not, what changes would make it so?"
>
> 3.2.1 New Item
>  o draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt
>    Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies
>    (Informational) - 1 of 3
>    Token: Ross Callon
>  o draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04.txt
>    VoIP Configuration Server Address Option (Informational) - 2 of 3
>    Token: Jari Arkko
>  o draft-korhonen-mip4-service-07.txt
>    Service Selection for Mobile IPv4 (Informational) - 3 of 3
>    Token: Jari Arkko
>
> 3.2.2 Returning Item
> NONE
> 3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
> 	The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
> 	found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
> 	IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
> 	<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
> 	that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
> 	not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
> 	document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
> 	therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
> 	approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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.
>
> 	The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in
> 	the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
> 	Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
> 	indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
> 	document shepherd.
>
> 	Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
> 	be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the
> document.
>
>
> 3.3.1 New Item
> NONE
> 3.3.2 Returning Item
> NONE
>
> 4. Working Group Actions
> 4.1 WG Creation
> 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
>    NONE
> 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
>  o Message Organization (morg) - 1 of 1
>    Token: Chris Newman
> 4.2 WG Rechartering
> 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
>  o Network Configuration (netconf) - 1 of 2
>    Token: Dan Romascanu
>  o IP Performance Metrics (ippm) - 2 of 2
>    Token: Lars Eggert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors