IESG agenda: 2020-01-23
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: January 9, 2020
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 (15 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 (4 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 (4 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, area directors, authors, or chairs.
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 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 (4 telechats ago)
o Alvaro Retana to work on a framework for analyzing new proposals.
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 telechats ago)
o Adam Roach to work on a virtual social room for remote attendees
(promoting #hallway)
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 telechats ago)
o Warren Kumari to work on acknowledging shepherds, directorate
reviewers in a more standardized/formal way.
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 telechats ago)
o Alexey Melnikov to organize IoT overview discussion with interested
ADs.
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 telechats ago)
o Ignas Bagdonas to write a draft of an IoT Systems charter.
- Added 2019-10-10 (4 telechats ago)
o Alvaro Retana and Adam Roach to look at updating the I-D Checklist.
- Added 2019-10-31 (3 telechats ago)
o Roman Danilyw to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-
with-psk [IANA #1156116].
- Added 2019-11-13 (2 telechats ago)
o Roman Danilyw to find designated experts for RFC 8471 [IANA
#1156118].
- Added 2019-11-13 (2 telechats ago)
o Eric Vyncke to write up draft text on Special Interest
Groups and send to the IESG for comment.
- Added 2019-11-17 (2 telechats ago)
o All IESG to submit their metrics data priorities to Roman (deadline
January 16, 2020).
- Added 2019-11-18 (2 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to collect feedback from the IESG on the metrics
data priorities for the IESG to discuss at a future meeting.
- Added 2019-11-18 (2 telechats ago)
o Ben Kaduk, Alvaro Retana, and Suresh Krishnan to skim the ietf@ietf
list and collect a list of topics that seem to be the major concerns
for the community from recent discussion threads.
- Added 2019-11-18 (2 telechats ago)
o Martin Vigoureux to put together a proposal on disambiguating side
meetings from IETF meetings.
- Added 2019-11-22 (2 telechats ago)
o Magnus Westerlund to draft an IESG Statement regarding the IETF
as the default change controller for IANA Registration requests.
- Added 2019-12-12 (1 telechats ago)
o Suresh Krishnan to draft a "best errata practices" document and
post it on the IESG Wiki.
- Added 2019-12-12 (1 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-intarea-provisioning-domains
- Proposed Standard
- Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data
- Token
- Suresh Krishnan (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-regext-login-security
- Proposed Standard
- Login Security Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
- Token
- Barry Leiba (ART area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags
- Proposed Standard
- Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters Flags
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG 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
- IETF stream
- draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis
- Best Current Practice
- URI Design and Ownership
- Token
- Adam Roach (NONE area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
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:
- 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
- Conflict review
-
conflict-review-carpenter-limited-domains
IETF conflict review for draft-carpenter-limited-domains - ISE Informational
-
draft-carpenter-limited-domains
Limited Domains and Internet Protocols - Token
- Suresh Krishnan
3.4.2 Returning items
(None)
3.4.3 For action
- Conflict review
-
conflict-review-google-self-published-geofeeds
IETF conflict review for draft-google-self-published-geofeeds - ISE Informational
-
draft-google-self-published-geofeeds
A Format for Self-published IP Geolocation Feeds - Token
- Alissa Cooper
4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review
- WG name
- Reliable and Available Wireless (raw)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-raw-(00-00)
- Area
- RTG ((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
(None)