IESG agenda: 2016-06-02

Documents on future agendas DISCUSS positions

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: May 20, 2016

  o Jari Arkko to draft IESG Statement on treatment of IPR declarations
    - Added 2016-03-24 (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

IETF stream
draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis
Proposed Standard
Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes

IETF stream
draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema
Proposed Standard
An XML Schema for the CLUE data model
Token
Alissa Cooper (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes

IETF stream
draft-ietf-geojson
Proposed Standard
The GeoJSON Format
Token
Alissa Cooper (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Last call expires
2016-05-31

IETF stream
draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis
Proposed Standard
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2
Token
Kathleen Moriarty (SEC area)
IANA review
IANA - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Last call expires
2016-06-01

2.1.2 Returning items

(None)

2.2 Individual submissions

2.2.1 New items

IETF stream
draft-hardie-rfc6455-iana-clarification
Proposed Standard
Clarifying registry procedures for the Websockets sub-protocol registry
Token
Alexey Melnikov (ART area)
IANA review
IANA - Not OK
Consensus
Yes

IETF stream
draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis
Best Current Practice
Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
Token
Stephen Farrell (NONE area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes

2.2.2 Returning items

IETF stream
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
Best Current Practice
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
Token
Terry Manderson (NONE area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes

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-dime-e2e-sec-req
Informational
Diameter AVP Level Security End-to-End Security: Scenarios and Requirements
Token
Stephen Farrell (OPS 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:

  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

Conflict review
conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming
IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming
IRTF Informational
draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming
Adaptive Video Streaming over ICN
Token
Spencer Dawkins

3.4.3 For action

Conflict review
conflict-review-tcs-coap-no-response-option
IETF conflict review for draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option
ISE Informational
draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option
CoAP option for no server-response
Token
Jari Arkko

Conflict review
conflict-review-davie-stt
IETF conflict review for draft-davie-stt
ISE Informational
draft-davie-stt
A Stateless Transport Tunneling Protocol for Network Virtualization (STT)
Token
Jari Arkko
IPR
Nicira Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-davie-stt-01

4. Working Group actions

4.1 WG creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

WG name
Babel routing protocol (babel)
Charter
charter-ietf-babel-(00-02)
Area
RTG (Alia Atlas)

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)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 Relax Last Call Requirement for Normative Downrefs (Ben Campbell)

6.2 Finish reviewing IESG qualification for NomCom (Alexey Melnikov)

7. Working Group news