IESG agenda: 2020-07-09
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-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang
- Proposed Standard
- A Yang Data Model for IGMP and MLD Snooping
- Token
- Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
- IANA review
- Version Changed - Review Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls
- Proposed Standard
- Towards Remote Procedure Call Encryption By Default
- Token
- Magnus Westerlund (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
- Proposed Standard
- PCEP Extensions for LSP scheduling with stateful PCE
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IPR
-
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
- Proposed Standard
- A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Network Topologies
- Token
- Martin Vigoureux (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Unknown
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider
- Best Current Practice
- Requirements for Time-Based Loss Detection
- Token
- Martin Duke (TSV area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - No Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Unknown
- Reviews
2.1.2 Returning items
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
- Proposed Standard
- LISP Generic Protocol Extension
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
- Proposed Standard
- The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA OK - Actions Needed
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis
- Proposed Standard
- Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
- Token
- Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
- IANA review
- IANA - Not OK
- Consensus
- Yes
- Reviews
- IETF stream
- draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op
- Best Current Practice
- Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators
- Token
- Éric Vyncke (INT 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
(None)
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
(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
- WG name
- Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (gnap)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-gnap-(00-04)
- Area
- SEC (Roman Danyliw)
- WG name
- Privacy Pass (privacypass)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-privacypass-(00-00)
- Area
- SEC (Benjamin Kaduk)
- WG name
- Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
- Charter
- charter-ietf-shmoo-(00-02)
- Area
- GEN (Alissa Cooper)
4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review
(None)
4.2.2 Proposed for approval
(None)