[IESG-AGENDA-DIST] IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for November 6, 2008

IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply@ietf.org> Thu, 30 October 2008 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <iesg-agenda-dist-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iesg-agenda-dist-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-iesg-agenda-dist-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF5F28C1A1; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iesg-agenda-dist@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 881BA28C1A0; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply@ietf.org>
To: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20081030223113.881BA28C1A0@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:31:13 -0700
Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for November 6, 2008
X-BeenThere: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distribution of IESG agendas <iesg-agenda-dist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-agenda-dist>, <mailto:iesg-agenda-dist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/iesg-agenda-dist>
List-Post: <mailto:iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iesg-agenda-dist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-agenda-dist>, <mailto:iesg-agenda-dist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0833055581=="
Sender: iesg-agenda-dist-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iesg-agenda-dist-bounces@ietf.org

IESG Agenda

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-11-06).


1. Administrivia

    1.1 Roll Call
    1.2 Bash the Agenda
    1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
    1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat

2. Protocol Actions

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"
         

2.1 WG Submissions

          2.1.1 New Item
      AreaDate
SECEAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Method (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-16.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-16.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2707&filename=draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: document shepherd: Joe Salowey <jsalowey@cisco.com>
Token: Pasi Eronen
RAIThe use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2810&filename=draft-ietf-sip-sips" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: The proto Shepherd for this document is Dean Willis.
Token: Cullen Jennings
OPSInformation Model for Packet Sampling Exports (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-info-11.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-psamp-info-11.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2828&filename=draft-ietf-psamp-info" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: Juergen Quittek is the PROTO shepherd
Token: Dan Romascanu
RAIDatagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-06.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-06.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2885&filename=draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: The document shepherd is Roni Even.
Token: Cullen Jennings
TSVNetwork Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (BCP) - 5 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2890&filename=draft-ietf-behave-dccp" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Magnus Westerlund
RAIFramework for Establishing an SRTP Security Context using DTLS (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-05.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-05.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2897&filename=draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: Last Call ends Oct 31. Dean Willis will act as the proto shepherd.
Token: Cullen Jennings
RTGVirtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 7
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2914&filename=draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: David Ward
2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item
      NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
      NONE

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
      AreaDate
TSVTest vectors for STUN (Informational) - 1 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-03.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-03.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2904&filename=draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Magnus Westerlund
RTGAS Number Reservation for Documentation Use (Informational) - 2 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2923&filename=draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: David Ward
3.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

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
      AreaDate
GENConsiderations for Having a Successful BOF (Informational) - 1 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1944&filename=draft-narten-successful-bof" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Russ Housley
GENSuite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational) - 2 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb-09.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb-09.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2891&filename=draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Tim Polk
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
         
AreaDate
TSVOct 21Techniques for Advanced Networking Applications (tana) - 1 of 1
Token:Lars
          4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
         
AreaDate
APPSep 18Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto) - 1 of 1
Token:Lisa
         

4.2 WG Rechartering

          4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
         
AreaDate
TSVOct 15Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) - 1 of 2
Token:Magnus
INTOct 16Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop) - 2 of 2
Token:Jari

5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

6.1 Message to IANA regarding address range reservation for IETF protocols (Russ Housley)
6.2 Large Interim Meeting Agenda (Russ Housley)

7. Working Group News

_______________________________________________
IESG-AGENDA-DIST mailing list
IESG-AGENDA-DIST@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-agenda-dist