[IESG-AGENDA-DIST] IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for October 9, 2008

IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply@ietf.org> Fri, 03 October 2008 15:08 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 391B128C28A; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:08:35 -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 3D80528C247; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply@ietf.org>
To: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20081003150833.3D80528C247@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:08:33 -0700
Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for October 9, 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="===============0764888878=="
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 (2008-10-09).


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
RAITransmission Time offsets in RTP streams (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-07.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-07.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2466&filename=draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: Tom Taylor is the PROTO Shepherd
Token: Cullen Jennings
RAIExample calls flows of race conditions in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (BCP) - 2 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-race-examples-06.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-sipping-race-examples-06.txt
Token: Jon Peterson
RTGForCES Forwarding Element Model (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-model-15.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-forces-model-15.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2775&filename=draft-ietf-forces-model" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ross Callon
OPSCAPWAP Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-13.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-13.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2777&filename=draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Dan Romascanu
OPSCAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-10.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-10.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2824&filename=draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Dan Romascanu
RAIRTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.711.1 (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2830&filename=draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: Roni Even is the document shepherd.
Token: Cullen Jennings
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
      NONE
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
GENJWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile (Informational) - 1 of 1
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2900&filename=draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: David Ward
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
      AreaDate
SECSyntax for binding documents with time stamps (Informational) - 1 of 1
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-santoni-timestampeddata-04.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-santoni-timestampeddata-04.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2811&filename=draft-santoni-timestampeddata" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Tim Polk
3.3.2 Returning Item
      AreaDate
GENGuidelines for Using the Privacy Mechanism for SIP (Informational) - 1 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline-04.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline-04.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2834&filename=draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Note: Proposing that this use RFC3932 Note 2:       This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
      its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
      in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
      RFC 3932 for more information.
Token: Jon Peterson
GENMANET Autoconfiguration using Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) (Informational) - 2 of 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-16.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-16.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2872&filename=draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp" rel="nofollow">[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ross Callon
3.3.3 For Action
      AreaDate
GENPPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE) Extensions for Credit Flow and Link Metrics (Informational) - 1 of 1
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt" rel="nofollow">draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt
Token: Russ Housley

4. Working Group Actions

         

4.1 WG Creation

          4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
                    NONE
         

4.2 WG Rechartering

          4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
                    NONE

5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

6.1 Referencing Non-Standardized Technology in IETF Documents (Dave Ward)
6.2 Expert Review for tel reg (Cullen Jennings)

7. Working Group News

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