IESG agenda: 2021-04-22

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-roll-aodv-rpl
Proposed Standard
Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks: AODV-RPL
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id
Proposed Standard
Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2
Token
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang
Proposed Standard
A YANG Module for TACACS+
Token
Robert Wilton (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param
Proposed Standard
Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer
Proposed Standard
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Secure Authorization Information for Transfer
Token
Murray Kucherawy (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob
Proposed Standard
Nimble out-of-band authentication for EAP (EAP-NOOB)
Token
Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
IANA review
IANA - Not OK
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

2.1.2 Returning items

IETF stream
draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation
Proposed Standard
STIR Certificate Delegation
Token
Murray Kucherawy (ART area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

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-opsec-v6
Informational
Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks
Token
Warren Kumari (OPS area)
Deferred by
Benjamin Kaduk on 2021-04-07
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
Experimental
Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains
Token
Murray Kucherawy (ART area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
Informational
Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers
Token
Robert Wilton (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

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

WG name
Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Charter
charter-ietf-term-(00-06)
Area
GEN (Lars Eggert)

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

(None)

4.2 WG rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

WG name
Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (lamps)
Charter
charter-ietf-lamps-(05-00)
Area
SEC (Roman Danyliw)

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

(None)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1194832] Designated experts for RFC 9018 (Warren Kumari))

6.2 [IANA #1184035] Designated experts for RFC 8935 (Ben Kaduk)

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