IESG agenda for 2008-01-24 telechat.
fenner@fenron.com (Bill Fenner) Mon, 21 January 2008 12:00 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 1JGvK1-0003Nx-Kf; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:00:13 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGvJz-0003Nq-U2 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:00:12 -0500
Received: from [206.197.161.144] (helo=rtg.ietf.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGvJz-0003YZ-1j for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:00:11 -0500
Received: from runaway.fenron.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtg.ietf.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0LC05Nc087181 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@runaway.fenron.com)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by runaway.fenron.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m0LC0544087180 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:00:05 -0800
Message-Id: <200801211200.m0LC0544087180@runaway.fenron.com>
From: fenner@fenron.com
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=ham version=3.2.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on runaway.fenron.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bc6181926481d86059e678c9f7cb8b34
Subject: IESG agenda for 2008-01-24 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 (2008-01-24). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An SEC Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4 draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: The proto shepherd is Julien Laganier Token: Sam Hartman SEC The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4 draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Joe Salowey is the proto shepherd Token: Sam Hartman RTG Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ross Callon RTG Representing multi-value time in MANETs (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ross Callon 2.1.2 Returning Item Area Date Failure Detection and Locator Pair INT Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author Token: Mark Townsley INT Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Token: Jari Arkko 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date APP The IMAP ENABLE Extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd 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 OPS IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ron Bonica 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 Area Date A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for APP the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Lisa Dusseault Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes RAI for OMA BCAST Service and Content Protection (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Cullen Jennings 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 Area Date Considerations of provider-to-provider GEN agreements for Internet-scale QoS (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Magnus Westerlund 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 26 vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 2 Token: Chris RTG Dec 20 Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 2 Token: David 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 Appeal (Russ Housley) 6.2 RFC Errata (Russ Housley) 6.3 Guidance to WG Chairs regarding off-topic mail list posting (Russ Housley) 6.4 Executive Session for IAOC Candidate Selection (Russ Housley) 7. Working Group News
- IESG agenda for 2008-01-24 telechat. Bill Fenner