IESG agenda for 2008-04-10 telechat.

fenner@fenron.com (Bill Fenner) Mon, 07 April 2008 11:02 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 core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565293A6BA1; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 C09553A69BA for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Cqlm4gB4NPqm for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from runaway.fenron.com (runaway.fenron.com [206.197.161.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE7C3A69CA for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from runaway.fenron.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by runaway.fenron.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m37B1FhY063527 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner@runaway.fenron.com)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by runaway.fenron.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m37B1FWl063526 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:01:15 -0700
Message-Id: <200804071101.m37B1FWl063526@runaway.fenron.com>
From: fenner@fenron.com
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: IESG agenda for 2008-04-10 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-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 (2008-04-10).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                  INT         Proxy Mobile IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 1
                              of 1
                              draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt [Open
                              Web Ballot]
                              Note: Document Shepherd is Jonne Soininen
                       Token: Jari Arkko

             2.1.2 Returning Item


                Area  Date

                INT         Mobile IPv4 Traversal Across IPsec-based
                            VPN Gateways (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
                            draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-05.txt
                            [Open Web Ballot]
                            Note: Document Shepherd is Henrik Levkowetz
                     Token: Jari Arkko


       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


               Area  Date

               RAI         ENUM Implementation Issues and Experiences
                           (Informational) - 1 of 2
                           draft-ietf-enum-experiences-09.txt [Open Web
                           Ballot]
                    Token: Jon Peterson
                           Requirements from SIP (Session Initiation
               RAI         Protocol) Session Border Control Deployments
                           (Informational) - 2 of 2
                           draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-05.txt [Open
                           Web Ballot]
                    Token: Jon Peterson

            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
                      NONE
                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
                       Area  Date
                       OPS  Apr 3  NETCONF Data Modeling Language
                                   (netmod) - 1 of 1
                            Token: Dan

              4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
                    Area  Date
                                Internationalized Domain Names in
                    APP  Mar 31 Applications (Revised) (idnabis) - 1 of
                                1
                         Token: Lisa

        4.2 WG Rechartering

                  4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                                      NONE
                4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
                       Area  Date
                       RAI  Feb 14 Multiparty Multimedia Session
                                   Control (mmusic) - 1 of 1
                            Token: Cullen


5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

6.1 ISOC BoT Candidate Confirmation (Executive Session) (Russ Housley)
6.2 Approval of expert team for IANA port number allocations (Lars
Eggert)
6.3 Confirm results of IETF LC on draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt
(Dan Romascanu)

7. Working Group News