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
√Čric 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:

  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

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)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1173341] Designated experts for the RDMA-CM Private Data Identifiers registry (RFC8797) (IANA)

6.2 [IANA #1173349] Secondary TZ Coordinator (IANA)

6.3 [IANA #1173346] Management Item: Acceptance of media type registration from standards organization Sequence Ontology (IANA)

6.4 [IANA #1173591] Designated experts for RFC 8784 (IANA)

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