IESG agenda: 2016-09-29
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 29, 2016
o Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, and Suresh Krishnan to propose charter
development recommendations.
- Added 2016-06-16 (8 telechats ago)
o Suresh Krishnan to find more scribes.
- Added after IETF 96 (5 telechats ago)
o Spencer Dawkins to organize a discussion about different meeting
formats for the Working Group Chairs Forum in Seoul.
- Added 2016-09-29 (1 telechat ago)
o Alissa Cooper to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-clue-data-
model-schema-17 (CLUE) [IANA #927901].
- Added 2016-09-29 (1 telechat ago)
o Ben Campbell and Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC
6690 (CoRE Parameters) [IANA #928192], as well as a backup for Zach
Shelby for the other CoRE registries.
- Added 2016-09-29 (1 telechat ago)
o Suresh Krishnan to find a designated expert for RFC 4944 [IANA
#929707].
- Added 2016-09-29 (1 telechat 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-pals-rfc4447bis
- Internet Standard
- Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe
- Proposed Standard
- Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE: A DHCPv6-based Prioritization Mechanism
- Token
- Terry Manderson (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap
- Proposed Standard
- GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
- Token
- Spencer Dawkins (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch
- Proposed Standard
- 6LoWPAN Paging Dispatch
- Token
- Suresh Krishnan (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-cose-msg
- Proposed Standard
- CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
- Token
- Kathleen Moriarty (SEC area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection
- Proposed Standard
- Protecting Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) Implementations from Distributed Denial of Service Attacks
- Token
- Kathleen Moriarty (SEC area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- 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
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements
- Informational
- I2RS Security Related Requirements
- Token
- Alia Atlas (RTG area)
- IANA review
- Version Changed - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization
- Experimental
- Multi-Path Time Synchronization
- Token
- Suresh Krishnan (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
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
(None)
3.4.2 Returning items
(None)
4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review
- WG name
- SIDR Operations (sidrops)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-sidrops-(00-03)
- Area
- OPS (Joel Jaeggli)
- WG name
- IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (ipwave)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-ipwave-(00-02)
- Area
- INT (Suresh Krishnan)
- WG name
- IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-lpwan-(00-00)
- Area
- INT (Suresh Krishnan)
4.1.2 Proposed for approval
- WG name
- QUIC (quic)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-quic-(00-09)
- Area
- TSV (Spencer Dawkins)
4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review
(None)
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)