IESG agenda: 2021-09-23

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: September 17, 2021

  o John Scudder, Martin Duke, and Robert Wilton to review the document
    shepherd templates and propose changes to include updated questions,
    cross-area checks, and an expanded section on the use of YANG 
    models.
    - Added 2021-05-03 (9 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft a note to wgchairs 
    asking them to always confirm author/contributor status.
    - Added 2021-04-01 (11 telechats ago)
  o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft text to include in the 
    I-D submission tool warning about too many authors.
    - Added 2021-04-01 (11 telechats ago)
  o Murray Kucherawy to update BCP 97 to provide guidance about handling
    normative references to non-SDO documents.
    - Added 2021-06-03 (7 telechats ago) 
  o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to 
    the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in October 2021.
    - Added 2021-06-10 (6 telechats ago)
  o Lars Eggert, John Scudder, Ben Kaduk, Mirja Kuehlewind, Murray
    Kucherawy and Warren Kumari to work on short-term improvements to
    "IETF Culture, Toxicity, Inclusion."
    - Added 2021-07-01 (5 telechats ago)
  o The IESG to review the feedback on whether to continue the RFC 8989 
    experiment 2022-2023 cycle by October 7, 2021.
    - Added 2021-09-08 (1 telechat ago)
  o Warren Kumari to rewrite the IESG blog post on "Handling IESG ballot 
    positions" as an IESG statement.
    - Added 2021-09-08 (1 telechat ago)
  o Lars Eggert to report back on the maintenance of 
    https://github.com/ietf/repo-files by October 28, 2021.
    - On hold; added 2021-09-08 (1 telechat ago)
  o Lars Eggert to finalize text regarding the IETF Lists and send to 
    community for review.
    - added 2021-09-16 (0 telechats ago)
  o Warren Kumari to find designated experts for RFC 9108 (YANG Types 
    for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types) [IANA #1208738].
    - Added 2021-09-17 (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-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate
Proposed Standard
Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in (D)TLS 1.2
Token
Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
Proposed Standard
A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model
Token
Robert Wilton (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
Proposed Standard
A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model
Token
Robert Wilton (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis
Internet Standard
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Token
Martin Duke (TSV area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct
Proposed Standard
SenML Data Value Content-Format Indication
Token
Francesca Palombini (ART 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-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname
Proposed Standard
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Single Area Border RBridge Nickname for Multilevel
Token
Martin Vigoureux (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - 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:

  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

WG name
Oblivious Applications using Relayed HTTP (oarh)
Charter
charter-ietf-oarh-(00-00)
Area
SEC (Francesca Palombini)

WG name
DANE Authentication for Network Clients Everywhere (dance)
Charter
charter-ietf-dance-(00-02)
Area
SEC (Roman Danyliw)

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 [IANA #1206926] Renewal for early allocations for draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (IANA)

6.2 [IANA #1208738] Designated experts for RFC 9108 (YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types) (Warren Kumari)

6.3 Downrefs for RFC793bis (Martin Duke)

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