Skip to main content

IESG agenda
2023-02-16

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: February 3, 2023

* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

  o Francesca Palombini to find designated experts for RFC 8141 (Formal 
    URN Namespaces, Informal URN Namespaces) [IANA #1263515]
    - added 2023-01-09 (2 telechats ago)
  o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9347, ESP 
    AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD registry [IANA #1265971] 
    - Added 2023-02-03 (0 telechats ago)

* OPEN ACTION ITEMS

  o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to 
    the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in March 2023.
    - On hold; added 2021-06-10 (33 telechats ago)
  o Lars Eggert, Warren Kumari, Éric Vyncke, and Rob Wilton to discuss 
    whether to reconstruct the document approval announcements to be 
    more meaningful.
    - added 2023-01-12 (2 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
Publish/Subscribe Functionality for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
SECDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-11-17
Proposed Standard
HyStart++: Modified Slow Start for TCP
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Proposed Standard
Problem Details for HTTP APIs
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
Multiplexing Scheme Updates for QUIC
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)

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

Conflict review
IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats
conflict-review-irtf-nwcrg-bats
IRTF Informational
BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats
IPR

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

WG name
Time-Variant Routing (TVR)

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 Final BoF Approvals for IETF 116

6.2 [IANA #1265971] Designated experts for RFC 9347, ESP AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD registry (IANA)

6.3 [IANA #1263515] Designated experts for RFC 8141 (Uniform Resource Names (URNs)) (Francesca Palombini)

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