IESG agenda for 2009-01-08 telechat.
fenner@fenron.com (Bill Fenner) Mon, 05 January 2009 12:00 UTC
Return-Path: <rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-dir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FB23A676A; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FDB3A67F1 for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UEICTHLfzw7d for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from runaway.fenron.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:117:128:230:48ff:fe92:8e81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C08C3A676A for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from runaway.fenron.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by runaway.fenron.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n05C04Wm053380 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@runaway.fenron.com)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by runaway.fenron.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n05C04ZJ053372 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:00:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:00:04 -0800
Message-Id: <200901051200.n05C04ZJ053372@runaway.fenron.com>
From: fenner@fenron.com
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: IESG agenda for 2009-01-08 telechat.
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2009-01-08). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Area Date RTG Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 5 draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ross Callon Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions SEC (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 5 draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Tim Polk Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions SEC (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Certificate Handling (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 5 draft-ietf-smime-3850bis-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Tim Polk A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol RAI (SIP) Session Policies (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5 draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Cullen Jennings RTG Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 5 draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-03.txt [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 Area Date GEN IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions (BCP) - 1 of 1 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] 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 Area Date DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport SEC Layer Security (TLS) (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Tim Polk TSV Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Lars Eggert 3.1.2 Returning Item NONE 3.1.3 For Action Area Date RTG The RPF Vector TLV (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] 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 Area Date Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path RTG Computation Methodologies (Informational) - 1 of 3 draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ross Callon INT VoIP Configuration Server Address Option (Informational) - 2 of 3 draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Jari Arkko INT Service Selection for Mobile IPv4 (Informational) - 3 of 3 draft-korhonen-mip4-service-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] 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 Area Date APP Dec 11 Message Organization (morg) - 1 of 1 Token: Chris 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review Area Date OPS Dec 17 Network Configuration (netconf) - 1 of 2 Token: Dan TSV Dec 19 IP Performance Metrics (ippm) - 2 of 2 Token: Lars 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 6.1 Nomcom appointment to the IAOC (Ross Callon) 7. Working Group News
- IESG agenda for 2009-01-08 telechat. Bill Fenner