IESG agenda: 2017-08-31
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 17, 2017
o Alia Atlas to find designated expert(s) for RFC 7557
[IANA #971118].
- Added 2017-08-03 (2 telechats ago)
o Spencer Dawkins to produce a draft e-mail and wiki text for the BOF
Wiki, describing "maps and gaps."
- Added 2017-08-10 (1 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-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
- Proposed Standard
- RPKI Validation Reconsidered
- Token
- Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
- Proposed Standard
- E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN
- Token
- Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Unknown
- Reviews
- IPR
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-homenet-dot
- Proposed Standard
- Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.'
- Token
- Terry Manderson (INT area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-25
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp
- Proposed Standard
- PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-23
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw
- Proposed Standard
- Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-24
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
- Proposed Standard
- Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-24
- IPR
-
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6006 and draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity
- Proposed Standard
- Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-24
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap
- Proposed Standard
- Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF
- Token
- Alia Atlas (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-28
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata
- Proposed Standard
- Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
- Token
- Spencer Dawkins (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-25
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis
- Proposed Standard
- Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1
- Token
- Spencer Dawkins (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-24
2.1.2 Returning items
(None)
2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items
- IETF stream
- draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack
- Proposed Standard
- GDOI GROUPKEY-PUSH Acknowledgement Message
- Token
- Kathleen Moriarty (NONE area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IPR
-
Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-00
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-teas-pce-central-control
- Informational
- An Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with Central Control
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Unknown
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-24
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance
- Informational
- IODEF Usage Guidance
- Token
- Kathleen Moriarty (SEC area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- Last call expires
- 2017-08-25
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
- Conflict review
-
conflict-review-irtf-hrpc-research
IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-hrpc-research - IRTF Informational
-
draft-irtf-hrpc-research
Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations - Token
- Spencer Dawkins
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
(None)
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)