IESG agenda for 2007-04-19 telechat.
fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) Mon, 16 April 2007 11:06 UTC
Return-path: <rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdP2A-0004c6-Tf; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:06:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdP29-0004bt-DC for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:06:09 -0400
Received: from alnrmhc13.comcast.net ([206.18.177.53]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdP27-0003lD-Qd for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:06:09 -0400
Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (c-67-188-114-134.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[67.188.114.134]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20070416110607b1300jlsb7e>; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:06:07 +0000
Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l3GB05FS012400 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:00:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l3GB051g012399 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:00:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:00:05 -0700
Message-Id: <200704161100.l3GB051g012399@frogbits.attlabs.att.com>
From: fenner@research.att.com
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: fe105289edd72640d9f392da880eefa2
Subject: IESG agenda for 2007-04-19 telechat.
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
IESG Agenda
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next
Telechat (2007-04-19).
Updated 2:2:26 EDT, April 16, 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
1.5 Review of Projects
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
Area Date
RAI Presence Authorization Rules (Proposed
Standard) - 1 of 5
draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-09.txt [Open
Web Ballot]
Token: Jon Peterson
Definitions of Managed Objects for iSNS
TSV (Internet Storage Name Service) (Proposed
Standard) - 2 of 5
draft-ietf-ips-isns-mib-11.txt [Open Web
Ballot]
Note: PROTO Shepherd: David Black
(Black_David@emc.com)
MIB Doctor: Bert Wijnen (bwijnen@lucent.com)
Initial expert review: Keith McCloghrie
(kzm@cisco.com)
Token: Lars Eggert
TSV Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block
(Proposed Standard) - 3 of 5
draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-06.txt [Open Web
Ballot]
Token: Magnus Westerlund
IPv6 Over the IP Specific part of the Packet
INT Convergence sublayer in 802.16 Networks
(Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
Note: NOTE: There are some LC and IEEE-review
comments pending
Token: Jari Arkko
TSV NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP (BCP) - 5
of 5
draft-ietf-behave-tcp-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Magnus Westerlund
2.1.2 Returning Item
Area Date
SEC Lightweight OCSP Profile for High Volume
Environments (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
draft-ietf-pkix-lightweight-ocsp-profile-08.txt
[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Russ Housley
2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
Area Date
APP IMAP Extension for SASL Initial Client Response
(Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
draft-siemborski-imap-sasl-initial-response-06.txt
[Open Web Ballot]
Token: Chris Newman
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
Area Date
INT Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based
Networks (Informational) - 1 of 2
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt
[Open Web Ballot]
Note: PROTO Shepherd is Soohong Daniel Park
<soohong.park@samsung.com>
Token: Jari Arkko
INT TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of
RBridges (Informational) - 2 of 2
draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt [Open Web
Ballot]
Token: Mark Townsley
3.1.2 Returning Item
Area Date
INT Five-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1
of 1
Host Identity Protocol (Experimental) - 1 of
1
draft-ietf-hip-base-07.txt
Using ESP transport format with HIP
(Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-esp-05.txt
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration
Extension (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-registration-02.txt
End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the
Host Identity Protocol (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous
Extension (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05.txt
Token: Mark Townsley
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
Area Date
The P-Answer-State Header Extension to the Session
RAI Initiation Protocol for the Open Mobile Alliance
Push-to-talk over Cellular (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-allen-sipping-poc-p-answer-state-header-05.txt
[Open Web Ballot]
Note: SIPPING RFC 3427 Expert Reviewer is Gonzalo
Camarillo; dependency of OMA
Token: Jon Peterson
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.
Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on
to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
3.3.1 New Item
Area Date
OPS Wireless LAN Control Protocol (WiCoP)
(Informational) - 1 of 2
draft-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: This document is an independent submission
via the RFC Editor. In conformace with RFC 3932,
Section 4, the IESG requests the publication of the
following note: "This RFC documents the WiCoP
protocol as it was when submitted to the IETF as a
basis for further work in the CAPWAP WG, and
therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in
progress or a published IETF work. This RFC itself
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 it has not had complete 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."
Token: Dan Romascanu
OPS Light Weight Access Point Protocol (Informational)
- 2 of 2
draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: This document is an independent submission
via the RFC Editor. In conformace with RFC 3932,
Section 4, the IESG requests the publication of the
following note: "This RFC documents the LWAPP
protocol as it was when submitted to the IETF as a
basis for further work in the CAPWAP WG, and
therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in
progress or a published IETF work. This RFC itself
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 it has not had complete 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."
Token: Dan Romascanu
3.3.2 Returning Item
Area Date
OPS SLAPP : Secure Light Access Point Protocol
(Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt [Open Web
Ballot]
Note: This document is an independent submission
via the RFC Editor. In conformace with RFC 3932,
Section 4, the IESG requests the publication of the
following note: "This RFC documents the SLAPP
protocol as it was when submitted to the IETF as a
basis for further work in the CAPWAP WG, and
therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in
progress or a published IETF work. This RFC itself
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 it has not had complete 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."
Token: Dan Romascanu
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 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Confirmation of ISOC BoT Appointment (Russ
Housley)
6.2 IANA designated expert for RFC4728
6.3 IANA designated expert for RFC3936
6.4 IANA designated expert for RFC4204
7. Working Group News
- IESG agenda for 2007-04-19 telechat. Bill Fenner