IESG agenda
2026-09-03
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: August 20, 2026
* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED
o Deb Cooley to find designated experts for OAuth Dynamic Client
Registration Metadata, OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods,
OAuth Token Introspection Response [IANA #1451183].
- Added 2026-04-30 (8 telechats ago)
o Chris Inacio to find designated experts for RFC 9965 (The
eap.arpa. Domain and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
Provisioning)[IANA #1452843].
- Added 2026-06-03 (6 telechats ago)
* OPEN ACTION ITEMS
o Roman Danyliw and Mahesh Jethanandani to draft update to "Guidance
on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents" statement.
- Added 2025-07-03 (25 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to revise documentation for IESG states in the Datatracker.
- Added 2026-02-19 (12 telechats ago)
o Med Boucadair and Ketan Talaulikar to refine the write-up
describing side meetings.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Mike Bishop to review the new work page.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Deb Cooley and Tommy Jensen to define guidance to give to
directorate reviewers about tools for reviews.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to find the origin of the "Reviews should focus on
these questions" text on the IESG agenda.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to revisit the community survey after IETF 126 to see
if there are additional questions the IESG would like to add.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Med Boucadair and Mike Bishop to refine the outstanding requests on
enhancing Datatracker participant profiles.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 telechats ago)
o Ketan Talaulikar and Roman Danyliw to work on a statement on
balloting procedures for charters.
- Added 2026-06-25 (4 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
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
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
3.4.2 Returning items
(None)
4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review
4.1.2 Proposed for approval
(None)
4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)