Skip to main content

IESG agenda
2024-04-04

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll call

1.2 Bash the agenda

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

OUTSTANDING TASKS

     Last updated: March 18, 2024

* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

  o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9422 (SMTP Server
    Limits) [IANA #1358457].
    - Added 2024-02-15 (3 telechats ago)
  o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9530 (Digest 
    Fields) [IANA #1359278].
    - Added 2024-02-21 (2 telechats ago)
  o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9535 (JSONPath: 
    Query Expressions for JSON)[IANA #1359744].
    - Added 2024-02-26 (2 telechats ago)
  o Deb Cooley to find one more designated expert for "SMI Security for PKIX Module 
    Identifier" registry of the group "Structure of Management Information 
    (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations)"
    - Added 2024-03-19 (0 telechats ago)

* OPEN ACTION ITEMS

  o Lars Eggert and Warren Kumari to 1) draft a revision of RFC 4858, 
    2) draft a revised IESG Statement on Document Shepherds (original 
    statement October 2010), and 3) update the WG Chairs wiki to point 
    to the new IESG Statement.
    - Added 2023-08-17 (15 telechats ago)
  o Jay Daley, Dhruv Dhody, Éric Vyncke, Orie Steele, Mahesh 
    Jethanandani, Gunter Van de Velde to form a design team to gather 
    community feedback about meeting in China.
    - Added 2024-03-18 (0 telechats ago)

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 items

Proposed Standard
Using Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC) with the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) and Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 dataplane
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
Secure Frame (SFrame)
IETF stream
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
JMAP for Sieve Scripts
IETF stream
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
Authorized update to MUD URLs
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
COSE "typ" (type) Header Parameter
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
IMAP4 Extension for Returning Mailbox METADATA in Extended LIST
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes

2.1.2 Returning items

(None)

2.2 Individual submissions

2.2.1 New items

(None)

2.2.2 Returning items

(None)

2.3 Status changes

2.3.1 New items

None
Proposed Status Change for RFC 9048 (EAP-AKA') from Informational to Proposed Standard

2.3.2 Returning items

(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 items

Informational
Using DHCPv6-PD to Allocate Unique IPv6 Prefix per Client in Large Broadcast Networks
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Experimental
IMAP Extension for only using and returning UIDs
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Unknown

3.1.2 Returning items

(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 items

3.2.2 Returning items

(None)

3.3 Status changes

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Are the proposed changes to document status appropriate? Have all requirements for such a change been met? If not, what changes to the proposal would make it appropriate?"

3.3.1 New items

(None)

3.3.2 Returning items

(None)

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents

The IESG will use RFC 5742 responses:

  1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work;
  2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing;
  3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time;
  4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; or
  5. The IESG has concluded 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 conflict-review document, and the document shepherd may supply text for an IESG Note in that document. The Area Director ballot positions indicate consensus with the response proposed by the document shepherd and agreement that the IESG should request inclusion of the IESG Note.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.4.1 New items

(None)

3.4.2 Returning items

(None)

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

WG name
Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (MASQUE)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1361078] Designated experts for RFC 9508 (Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Ping Protocol Specification) (IANA)

6.2 When should IANA be notified about document state changes? (IANA, Tools Liaisons)

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)