IESG agenda: 2021-02-25
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 18, 2021
o Alvaro Retana, Benjamin Kaduk, and Murray Kucherawy to look at
updating the I-D Checklist.
- Added 2019-10-31; reassigned 2020-03-05 (24 telechats ago)
o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft text on guidance
regarding the number of document authors on documents.
- Added 2020-06-02 (17 telechats ago)
o Alvaro Retana, Warren Kumari, and Barry Leiba to draft clarifying
text on Errata Best Practices.
- Added 2020-06-04 (17 telechats ago)
o Martin Vigoureux and Alvaro Retana to work with Jay Daley on the
process for using EthicsPoint incident management software as
the mechanism of private feedback and anonymous reporting.
- Added 2020-10-01 (9 telechats ago)
o Erik Kline to find designated Experts for RFC 8915 [IANA #1179647].
- Added 2020-10-05 (9 telechats ago)
o Warren Kumari, Deborah Brungard, Stephen Farrell, and Jay Daley to
investigate ways to recruit, recognize, and retain volunteers in the
IETF.
- Added 2020-11-11 (6 telechats ago)
o Erik Kline to find designated experts for RFC 8928 [IANA #1183445].
- Added 2020-11-26 (6 telechats ago)
o Ben Kaduk to find designated experts for RFC 8935 [IANA #1184035].
- Added 2020-12-02 (6 telechats ago)
o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 8839 [IANA
#1187517].
- Added 2021-01-19 (3 telechats ago)
o Eric Vyncke to draft text for the WG Chairs about requesting early
review of documents by existing Directorates.
- Added 2021-02-04 (2 telechats ago)
o Alvaro Retana, Rob Wilton, Alissa Cooper, and Martin Vigoureux to
draft text on the framework for a long-term future plan for the
IETF.
- Added 2020-06-02; postponed to 2021-02-18 (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-cdni-uri-signing
- Proposed Standard
- URI Signing for Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
- Token
- Barry Leiba (ART area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IPR
-
Koninklijke KPN N.V.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing
Koninklijke KPN N.V.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh
- Proposed Standard
- IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP
- Token
- Erik Kline (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method
- Proposed Standard
- Metrics and Methods for One-way IP Capacity
- Token
- Martin Duke (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions
- Proposed Standard
- VALARM Extensions for iCalendar
- Token
- Barry Leiba (ART area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
- Proposed Standard
- PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl
- Proposed Standard
- RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-lamps-cms-aes-gmac-alg
- Proposed Standard
- Using the AES-GMAC Algorithm with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
- Token
- Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services
- Proposed Standard
- Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim and a SIP Priority Header Claim in Support of Emergency Services Networks
- Token
- Murray Kucherawy (ART area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
2.1.2 Returning items
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
- Best Current Practice
- Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to IPv6 Renumbering Events
- Token
- Warren Kumari (OPS area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
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
- IETF stream
- status-change-rdap-to-internet-standard
- None
- Advancing the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) to Internet Standard
- Token
- Barry Leiba (IETF area)
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
- IETF stream
- draft-crocker-inreply-react
- Experimental
- React: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
- Token
- Barry Leiba (ART area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
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
(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
- QUIC (quic)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-quic-(02-01)
- Area
- TSV (Magnus Westerlund)
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)