IESG agenda
2023-10-05
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: September 21, 2023
* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED
o Rob Wilton to find designated experts for RFC 9445 (RADIUS
Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services) [IANA #1279159]
- Added 2023-08-25 (2 telechats ago).
o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for draft-yee-ssh-iana-
requirements-03 (Key Exchange Method Names) [IANA #1281831].
- Added 2023-09-15 (1 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9447, ACME
Authority Token Challenge Types" [IANA #1281679].
- Added 2023-09-18 (1 telechats ago)
* OPEN ACTION ITEMS
o Warren Kumari to follow up on a bis document for RFC 8126 regarding
designated experts.
- Added 2023-03-26 (12 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to open a Datatracker issue suggesting a feature to
better signal individual contributions
- Added 2023-05-25 (9 telechats ago)
o Andrew Alston, Murray Kucherawy, Zahed Sarker, Martin Duke, John
Scudder, and Jim Guichard to draft text regarding document
authorship/editorship with regards to the number of authors listed.
- Added 2023-07-23 (4 telechats ago)
o Lars Eggert to facilitate a community discussion on priorities for
IESG processes.
- Added 2023-07-27 (4 telechats ago)
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 (3 telechats ago)
o Warren Kumari to follow up with the tools team regarding removing
the requirement of needing an author email for deceased authors.
- Added 2023-08-17 (3 telechats ago)
o Martin Duke to draft an email to the community about the ART/TSV
Area merger.
- Added 2023-09-21 (1 telechat ago)
o John Scudder to update the NomCom instructions from the IESG with
information about the ART/TSV merger.
- Added 2023-09-21 (1 telechat ago)
o John Scudder to follow up on the RSWG Chair appointment.
- Added 2023-09-21 (1 telechat 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
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)
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
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
(None)
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
3.3.2 Returning items
(None)
3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
The IESG will use RFC 5742 responses:
- The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work;
- The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing;
- 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;
- 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
- 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
3.4.2 Returning items
(None)
4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review
4.1.2 Proposed for approval
4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review
(None)
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)