IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for January 10, 2008
IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply <at> ietf.org>
2008-01-03 23:12:33 GMT
IESG Agenda
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-10).
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
2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE
|
2.2 Individual Submissions
| |
2.2.1 New Item
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
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
|
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therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG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therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.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
| |
AreaDate
| APP |
Dec 26 |
vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 3 |
|
Token: |
Chris |
| RTG |
Dec 20 |
Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 3 |
|
Token: |
David |
| INT |
Dec 28 |
Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) - 3 of 3 |
|
Token: |
Jari |
|
|
| |
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 Approval of the IESG Policy on Autoresponse Messages Sent to IETF Mailing Lists (Chris Newman)
7. Working Group News
<div>
<h1>IESG Agenda</h1>
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-10).<br><br><h2>1. Administrivia</h2>
<ul>
1.1 Roll Call<br>
1.2 Bash the Agenda<br>
1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat<br>
1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat<br>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>2. Protocol Actions
</h2>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a<br>
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet<br>
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"
</blockquote>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<h3>2.1 WG Submissions</h3>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
2.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt">draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1780&filename=draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dromasca <at> avaya.com">Dan Romascanu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RAI</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Internet Calendaring Services (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt">draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2219&filename=draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz">Jon Peterson</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2285&filename=draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:townsley <at> cisco.com">Mark Townsley</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2286&filename=draft-ietf-shim6-proto">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston <gih <at> apnic.net></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>APP</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Sieve Email Filtering: Body Extension (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-body-07.txt">draft-ietf-sieve-body-07.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2509&filename=draft-ietf-sieve-body">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:lisa <at> osafoundation.org">Lisa Dusseault</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-10.txt">draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-10.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2545&filename=draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt">draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2556&filename=draft-ietf-psamp-protocol">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dromasca <at> avaya.com">Dan Romascanu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt">draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2580&filename=draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Note: Joe Salowey is the proto shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Multicast Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions-07.txt">draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions-07.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2654&filename=draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Note: Lakshminath Dondeti is the proto shepherd.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RAI</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Framework for Consent-based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-03.txt">draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-03.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2687&filename=draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Note: Keith Drage is the document shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:fluffy <at> cisco.com">Cullen Jennings</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.1.2 Returning Item
<br> NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>2.2 Individual Submissions</h3>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
2.2.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field (BCP) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.txt">draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2658&filename=draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:housley <at> vigilsec.com">Russ Housley</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.2.2 Returning Item
<br> NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>3. Document Actions</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<h3>3.1 WG Submissions
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
3.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) (Informational) - 1 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06.txt">draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2475&filename=draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 2 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt">draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2551&filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:rbonica <at> juniper.net">Ron Bonica</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements (Informational) - 3 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt">draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2684&filename=draft-ietf-nea-requirements">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.1.2 Returning Item
<br> NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
3.2.1 New Item
<br> NONE<br>3.2.2 Returning Item
<table>
<tr> AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>GEN</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB) (Informational) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03.txt">draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03.txt</a>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2583&filename=draft-adolf-dvb-urn">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:lisa <at> osafoundation.org">Lisa Dusseault</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
</h3>
<blockquote>
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not<br>
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The<br>
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG<br>
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks<br>
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends<br>
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this<br>
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG<br>
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an<br>
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.<br><br>
The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in<br>
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG<br>
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions<br>
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the<br>
document shepherd.<br><br>
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will<br>
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
</blockquote>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
3.3.1 New Item
<br> NONE<br>3.3.2 Returning Item
<br> NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>4. Working Group Actions</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<h3>4.1 WG Creation</h3>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review<br><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<table>
<tr>AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td>APP</td>
<td>Dec 26</td>
<td>vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:chris.newman <at> sun.com">Chris</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>RTG</td>
<td>Dec 20</td>
<td>Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dward <at> cisco.com">David</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>INT</td>
<td>Dec 28</td>
<td>Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) - 3 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval<br>
NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<h3>4.2 WG Rechartering</h3>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review<br>
NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
4.2.2 Proposed for Approval<br>
NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>5. IAB News We Can Use</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2> 6. Management Issues</h2>
6.1 Approval of the IESG Policy on Autoresponse Messages Sent to IETF Mailing Lists (Chris Newman)<br><p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>7. Working Group News</h2>
<p>
</p>
</div>
RSS Feed