IESG agenda: 2017-07-06

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

            (Error reading /a/www/www6/iesg/internal/task.txt)
          

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-rfc5444-usage
Proposed Standard
Rules for Designing Protocols Using the RFC 5444 Generalized Packet/ Message Format
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-29

IETF stream
draft-ietf-precis-7700bis
Proposed Standard
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames
Token
Alexey Melnikov (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-precis-7613bis
Proposed Standard
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords
Token
Ben Campbell (ART area)
IANA review
IANA - Not OK
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-27

IETF stream
draft-ietf-precis-7564bis
Proposed Standard
PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols
Token
Alexey Melnikov (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation
Proposed Standard
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): MTU Negotiation
Token
Alia Atlas (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-28

2.1.2 Returning items

(None)

2.2 Individual submissions

2.2.1 New items

IETF stream
draft-baeuerle-netnews-cancel-lock
Proposed Standard
Cancel-Locks in Netnews articles
Token
Alexey Melnikov (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Unknown
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-28

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-trill-rbridge-multilevel
Informational
Alternatives for Multilevel TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
Token
Alia Atlas (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-28

IETF stream
draft-ietf-bier-architecture
Experimental
Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication
Token
Alia Atlas (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews
Last call expires
2017-06-29
IPR
Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bier-architecture
Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bier-architecture
Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bier-architecture

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

(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)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)