IESG agenda: 2019-12-05

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: November 13, 2019

  o Roman Danyliw to draft text to be posted on ietf.org about reporting 
    protocol vulnerabilities via an email alias and possible procedures 
    on how to assign triage resources. 
    - Added 2019-04-24 (13 telechats ago)
  o Eric Vyncke to write up draft text for the NomCom to help them 
    understand the rules for the NomCom.
    - Added 2019-04-25 (13 telechats ago)
  o Roman Danyliw to write up how measuring deployments could factor 
    into WG chartering/rechartering.
    - Added 2019-10-09 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alexey Melnikov to think about how to analyze how successful WGs and 
    protocols are and why they failed or not.
    - Added 2019-10-09 (2 telechats ago)
  o Martin Vigoureux with Wes, and Alvaro to work on some
    mechanism to obtain wider or private feedback from people who are 
    disenfranchised; anonymous flagging of offensive emails to inform 
    leadership; more opportunities for private feedback.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana with Warren, Alexey, Martin, Barry, and Roman 
    to work on more transparency in the Datatracker about how long each 
    phase of doc process takes / New datatracker flag to indicate who 
    has the ball, authors or chairs.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alissa Cooper with Warren, Wes, Mirja, Alvaro, Martin, Eric, Ted, 
    Robin (Zhenbin), Deborah, and Roman to work on organizing how IETF 
    work is described and presented to external audiences.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Eric Vyncke with Barry, Warren, Robin (Zhenbin), Deborah, and Alexey 
    will work on defining Special Interest Groups.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alexey Melnikov and Warren Kumari to add keyword tags to WG charters 
    to identify specs that pertain to some general concept.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana to work on a framework for analyzing new proposals. 
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Adam Roach to work on a virtual social room for remote attendees 
    (promoting #hallway)
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alissa Cooper and Roman Danyliw to create list of questions where we 
    need answers about IETF participation to make better operational 
    decisions. 
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Warren Kumari to work on acknowledging shepherds, directorate 
    reviewers in a more standardized/formal way.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Barry Leiba and Warren Kumari to write a more concrete proposal to 
    create intermediate step between DISCUSS and COMMENT - "Important 
    Points." 
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Barry Leiba to write a proposal to have drafts expire after 3 months 
    rather than 6 months.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana to work on early shepherding.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alexey Melnikov to organize IoT overview discussion with interested 
    ADs.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Ignas Bagdonas to write a draft of an IoT Systems charter.
    - Added 2019-10-10 (2 telechats ago)
  o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC 8620 [IANA 
    #1155192].
    - Added 2019-10-30 (1 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana and Adam Roach to look at updating the I-D Checklist.
    - Added 2019-10-31 (1 telechats ago)
  o Roman Danilyw to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-
    with-psk [IANA #1156116].
    - Added 2019-11-13 (0 telechats ago)
  o Roman Danilyw to find designated experts for RFC 8471 [IANA 
    #1156118].
    - Added 2019-11-13 (0 telechats ago)
  o Barry Leiba to find designated experts for RFC 8543 [IANA #1156117].
    - Added 2019-11-13 (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

IETF stream
draft-ietf-pim-drlb
Proposed Standard
PIM Designated Router Load Balancing
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
IPR
Cisco Systems' Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pim-drlb-00

IETF stream
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit
Proposed Standard
Host Router Support for OSPFv2
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr
Proposed Standard
Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
Token
Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
IPR
Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr
Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr

IETF stream
draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig
Proposed Standard
Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-based Signature Algorithm with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
Token
Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang
Proposed Standard
YANG Data Model for MPLS LDP
Token
Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext
Proposed Standard
YANG Data Structure Extensions
Token
Ignas Bagdonas (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

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

(None)

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

(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

WG name
JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap)
Charter
charter-ietf-jmap-(02-00)
Area
ART (Alexey Melnikov)

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

WG name
EAP Method Update (emu)
Charter
charter-ietf-emu-(05-02)
Area
SEC (Roman Danyliw)

WG name
Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (lamps)
Charter
charter-ietf-lamps-(04-01)
Area
SEC (Roman Danyliw)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1156116] Designated experts for RFC-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk (IANA)

6.2 [IANA #1156118] Designated experts for RFC 8471 (IANA)

6.3 [IANA #1156117] Designated experts for RFC 8543 (IANA)

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