IESG Secretary | 4 Jan 00:12 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (Plain Text) for January 10, 2008


          INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the January 10, 2008 IESG Teleconference

This agenda was generated at 18:12:33 EDT, January 3, 2008
Web version of this agenda can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html

1. Administrivia

  1.1 Roll Call
  1.2 Bash the Agenda
  1.3 Approval of the Minutes
  1.4 Review of Action Items

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 Item
  o draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt
    Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection (Proposed 
    Standard) - 1 of 10 
    Token: Dan Romascanu
  o draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt
    A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Internet 
    Calendaring Services (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 10 
    Token: Jon Peterson
(Continue reading)

IESG Secretary | 4 Jan 00:12 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for January 10, 2008

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-10).

1. Administrivia

    1.1 Roll Call
    1.2 Bash the Agenda
    1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
    1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat

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 Item       AreaDate
OPS Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 10
draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Dan Romascanu
RAI A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Internet Calendaring Services (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 10
draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Jon Peterson
INT Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 10
draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author
Token: Mark Townsley
INT Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 10
draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston <gih <at> apnic.net>
Token: Jari Arkko
APP Sieve Email Filtering: Body Extension (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 10
draft-ietf-sieve-body-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Lisa Dusseault
SEC Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 10
draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Sam Hartman
OPS Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 10
draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Dan Romascanu
SEC The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 10
draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Joe Salowey  is the proto shepherd
Token: Sam Hartman
SEC Multicast Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 10
draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Lakshminath Dondeti is the proto shepherd.
Token: Tim Polk
RAI A Framework for Consent-based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 10
draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Keith Drage is the document shepherd
Token: Cullen Jennings
2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item       AreaDate
INT IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field (BCP) - 1 of 1
draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Russ Housley
2.2.2 Returning Item
      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 Item       AreaDate
SEC Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) (Informational) - 1 of 3
draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Sam Hartman
OPS IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 2 of 3
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ron Bonica
SEC Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements (Informational) - 3 of 3
draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Tim Polk
3.1.2 Returning Item
      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 Item
      NONE
3.2.2 Returning Item       AreaDate
GEN A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB) (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Lisa Dusseault

3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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 Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
document shepherd.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
          3.3.1 New Item
      NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
      NONE

4. Working Group Actions

         

4.1 WG Creation

          4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
          AreaDate
APP Dec 26 vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 3
Token: Chris
RTG Dec 20 Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 3
Token: David
INT Dec 28 Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) - 3 of 3
Token: Jari
          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

6.1 Approval of the IESG Policy on Autoresponse Messages Sent to IETF Mailing Lists (Chris Newman)

7. Working Group News

<div>
<h1>IESG Agenda</h1>
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-10).<br><br><h2>1. Administrivia</h2>
<ul>
1.1 Roll Call<br>
1.2 Bash the Agenda<br>
1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat<br>
1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat<br>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>2. Protocol Actions
</h2>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a<br>
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet<br>
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"
</blockquote>

  
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>2.1 WG Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt">draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=1780&amp;filename=draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:dromasca <at> avaya.com">Dan Romascanu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RAI</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Internet Calendaring Services (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt">draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2219&amp;filename=draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz">Jon Peterson</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2285&amp;filename=draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:townsley <at> cisco.com">Mark Townsley</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2286&amp;filename=draft-ietf-shim6-proto">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston &lt;gih <at> apnic.net&gt;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>APP</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Sieve Email Filtering: Body Extension (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-body-07.txt">draft-ietf-sieve-body-07.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2509&amp;filename=draft-ietf-sieve-body">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:lisa <at> osafoundation.org">Lisa Dusseault</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-10.txt">draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-10.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2545&amp;filename=draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt">draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2556&amp;filename=draft-ietf-psamp-protocol">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:dromasca <at> avaya.com">Dan Romascanu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt">draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2580&amp;filename=draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Joe Salowey&nbsp; is the proto shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Multicast Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions-07.txt">draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions-07.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2654&amp;filename=draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-extensions">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Lakshminath Dondeti is the proto shepherd.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RAI</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Framework for Consent-based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-03.txt">draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-03.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2687&amp;filename=draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Keith Drage is the document shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:fluffy <at> cisco.com">Cullen Jennings</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.1.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>2.2 Individual Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.2.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field (BCP) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.txt">draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2658&amp;filename=draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:housley <at> vigilsec.com">Russ Housley</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.2.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>3. Document Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>3.1 WG Submissions
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) (Informational) - 1 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06.txt">draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2475&amp;filename=draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 2 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt">draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2551&amp;filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rbonica <at> juniper.net">Ron Bonica</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements (Informational) - 3 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt">draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2684&amp;filename=draft-ietf-nea-requirements">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.1.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.2.1 New Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>3.2.2 Returning Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>GEN</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB) (Informational) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03.txt">draft-adolf-dvb-urn-03.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2583&amp;filename=draft-adolf-dvb-urn">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:lisa <at> osafoundation.org">Lisa Dusseault</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
</h3>
<blockquote>
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not<br>
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The<br>
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG<br>
&lt;X&gt;, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks<br>
that publication is harmful to work in WG &lt;X&gt; and recommends<br>
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this<br>
document violates the IETF procedures for &lt;X&gt; and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG<br>
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an<br>
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.<br><br>
The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in<br>
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG<br>
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions<br>
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the<br>
document shepherd.<br><br>
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will<br>
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.3.1 New Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>3.3.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>4. Working Group Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.1 WG Creation</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review<br><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

     <table>
<tr>AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td>APP</td>
<td>Dec 26</td>
<td>vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:chris.newman <at> sun.com">Chris</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>RTG</td>
<td>Dec 20</td>
<td>Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dward <at> cisco.com">David</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>INT</td>
<td>Dec 28</td>
<td>Cga &amp; Send maIntenance (csi) - 3 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.2 WG Rechartering</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>5. IAB News We Can Use</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2> 6. Management Issues</h2>
6.1 Approval of the IESG Policy on Autoresponse Messages Sent to IETF Mailing Lists (Chris Newman)<br><p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>7. Working Group News</h2>
<p>
</p>
</div>
IESG Secretary | 18 Jan 01:22 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for January 24, 2008

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-24).

1. Administrivia

    1.1 Roll Call
    1.2 Bash the Agenda
    1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
    1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat

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 Item       AreaDate
SEC Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4
draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: The proto shepherd is Julien Laganier
Token: Sam Hartman
SEC The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4
draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Joe Salowey  is the proto shepherd
Token: Sam Hartman
RTG Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4
draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt
Token: Ross Callon
RTG Representing multi-value time in MANETs (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4
draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt
Token: Ross Callon
2.1.2 Returning Item       AreaDate
INT Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author
Token: Mark Townsley
INT Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston <gih <at> apnic.net>
Token: Jari Arkko
2.1.3 For Action       AreaDate
INT Hash Based Addresses (HBA) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
Mark Townsley to handle any IPR questions in AD review/IETF LC/IESG, if any
Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston <gih <at> apnic.net>
Token: Jari Arkko

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item       AreaDate
APP The IMAP ENABLE Extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd
Token: Chris Newman
2.2.2 Returning Item
      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 Item       AreaDate
OPS IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ron Bonica
3.1.2 Returning Item
      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 Item       AreaDate
APP A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Informational) - 1 of 2
draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Lisa Dusseault
RAI Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes for OMA BCAST Service and Content Protection (Informational) - 2 of 2
draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Cullen Jennings
3.2.2 Returning Item
      NONE

3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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 Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
document shepherd.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
          3.3.1 New Item       AreaDate
GEN Considerations of provider-to-provider agreements for Internet-scale QoS (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Magnus Westerlund
3.3.2 Returning Item
      NONE

4. Working Group Actions

         

4.1 WG Creation

          4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
          AreaDate
APP Dec 26 vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 2
Token: Chris
RTG Dec 20 Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 2
Token: David
         

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 Appeal (executive session) (Russ Housley)
6.2 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)
6.3 Guidance to WG Chairs regarding off-topic mail list posting (Russ Housley)

7. Working Group News

<div>
<h1>IESG Agenda</h1>
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-01-24).<br><br><h2>1. Administrivia</h2>
<ul>
1.1 Roll Call<br>
1.2 Bash the Agenda<br>
1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat<br>
1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat<br>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>2. Protocol Actions
</h2>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a<br>
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet<br>
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"
</blockquote>

  
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>2.1 WG Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt">draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2530&amp;filename=draft-ietf-btns-core">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: The proto shepherd is Julien Laganier</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt">draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2580&amp;filename=draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Joe Salowey&nbsp; is the proto shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf <at> mit.edu">Sam Hartman</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RTG</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt">draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt</a> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rcallon <at> juniper.net">Ross Callon</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RTG</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Representing multi-value time in MANETs (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt">draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt</a> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rcallon <at> juniper.net">Ross Callon</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.1.2 Returning Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2285&amp;filename=draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Mark is handling this for Jari as he is an author</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:townsley <at> cisco.com">Mark Townsley</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2286&amp;filename=draft-ietf-shim6-proto">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston &lt;gih <at> apnic.net&gt;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.1.3 For Action
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Hash Based Addresses (HBA) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05.txt">draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=1915&amp;filename=draft-ietf-shim6-hba">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability<br>Mark Townsley to handle any IPR questions in AD review/IETF LC/IESG, if any<br>Document Shepherd is Geoff Huston &lt;gih <at> apnic.net&gt;<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>2.2 Individual Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.2.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>APP</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>The IMAP ENABLE Extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt">draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2503&amp;filename=draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:chris.newman <at> sun.com">Chris Newman</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.2.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>3. Document Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>3.1 WG Submissions
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt">draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2551&amp;filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rbonica <at> juniper.net">Ron Bonica</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.1.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.2.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>APP</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Informational) - 1 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt">draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2659&amp;filename=draft-evain-ebu-urn">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:lisa <at> osafoundation.org">Lisa Dusseault</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>RAI</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes for OMA BCAST Service and Content Protection (Informational) - 2 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt">draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2704&amp;filename=draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:fluffy <at> cisco.com">Cullen Jennings</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.2.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
</h3>
<blockquote>
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not<br>
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The<br>
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG<br>
&lt;X&gt;, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks<br>
that publication is harmful to work in WG &lt;X&gt; and recommends<br>
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this<br>
document violates the IETF procedures for &lt;X&gt; and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG<br>
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an<br>
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.<br><br>
The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in<br>
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG<br>
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions<br>
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the<br>
document shepherd.<br><br>
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will<br>
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.3.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>GEN</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Considerations of provider-to-provider agreements for Internet-scale QoS (Informational) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt">draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2697&amp;filename=draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com">Magnus Westerlund</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.3.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>4. Working Group Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.1 WG Creation</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval<br><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

     <table>
<tr>AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td>APP</td>
<td>Dec 26</td>
<td>vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:chris.newman <at> sun.com">Chris</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>RTG</td>
<td>Dec 20</td>
<td>Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dward <at> cisco.com">David</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.2 WG Rechartering</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>5. IAB News We Can Use</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2> 6. Management Issues</h2>
6.1 Appeal (executive session) (Russ Housley)<br>6.2 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)<br>6.3 Guidance to WG Chairs regarding off-topic mail list posting (Russ Housley)<br><p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>7. Working Group News</h2>
<p>
</p>
</div>
IESG Secretary | 18 Jan 01:22 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (Plain Text) for January 24, 2008


          INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the January 24, 2008 IESG Teleconference

This agenda was generated at 19:22:42 EDT, January 17, 2008
Web version of this agenda can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html

1. Administrivia

  1.1 Roll Call
  1.2 Bash the Agenda
  1.3 Approval of the Minutes
  1.4 Review of Action Items

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 Item
  o draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt
    Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec (Proposed 
    Standard) - 1 of 4 
    Note: The proto shepherd is Julien Laganier 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt
    The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4 
    Note: Joe Salowey&nbsp; is the proto shepherd 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt
    Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 
    Token: Ross Callon
  o draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt
    Representing multi-value time in MANETs (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 
    Token: Ross Callon

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-09.txt
    Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 
    Multihoming (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 
    Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability. Mark is handling 
    this for Jari as he is an author 
    Token: Mark Townsley
  o draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt
    Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 2 
    of 2 
    Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability. Document Shepherd is 
    Geoff Huston &lt;gih <at> apnic.net&gt; 
    Token: Jari Arkko

2.1.3 For Action
  o draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05.txt
    Hash Based Addresses (HBA) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Please also read draft-ietf-shim6-applicability. Mark Townsley to 
    handle any IPR questions in AD review/IETF LC/IESG, if any. Document 
    Shepherd is Geoff Huston &lt;gih <at> apnic.net&gt;. 
    Token: Jari Arkko

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
  o draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt
    The IMAP ENABLE Extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd 
    Token: Chris Newman

2.2.2 Returning Item
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 Item
  o draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt
    IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Token: Ron Bonica

3.1.2 Returning Item
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 Item
  o draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt
    A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the European Broadcasting Union 
    (EBU) (Informational) - 1 of 2 
    Token: Lisa Dusseault
  o draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt
    Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes for OMA BCAST Service and 
    Content Protection (Informational) - 2 of 2 
    Token: Cullen Jennings

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
	The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
	found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
	IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
	<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
	that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
	not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
	document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
	therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
	approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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 Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
	Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
	indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
	document shepherd.

	Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
	be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.3.1 New Item
  o draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt
    Considerations of provider-to-provider agreements for Internet-scale QoS 
    (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Token: Magnus Westerlund

3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
    NONE
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
  o vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav) - 1 of 2
    Token: Chris
  o Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 2 of 2
    Token: David
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 Issue

 6.1 Appeal  (Russ Housley)

 6.2 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)

 6.3 Guidance to WG Chairs regarding off-topic mail list posting (Russ Housley)

 6.4 Executive Session for IAOC Candidate Selection (Russ Housley

7. Agenda Working Group News

IESG Secretary | 31 Jan 17:52 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (Plain Text) for February 7, 2008


          INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the February 7, 2008 IESG Teleconference

This agenda was generated at 11:52:24 EDT, January 31, 2008
Web version of this agenda can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html

1. Administrivia

  1.1 Roll Call
  1.2 Bash the Agenda
  1.3 Approval of the Minutes
  1.4 Review of Action Items

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 Item
  o draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt
    MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6 
    Note: Document waiting on mip6-hiopt resolutions before it can complete 
    succesful WGLC in DHC WG 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt
    Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol 
    (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6 
    Note: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt
    DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 3 
    of 6 
    Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt
    Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (Proposed Standard) - 4 
    of 6 
    Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt
    Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and 
    the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6 
    Token: Mark Townsley
  o draft-ietf-hokey-erx-08.txt
    EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) (Proposed Standard) 
    - 6 of 6 
    Token: Tim Polk

2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
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 Item
  o draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt
    Handover Key Management and Re-authentication Problem Statement 
    (Informational) - 1 of 3 
    Token: Tim Polk
  o draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt
    Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: 
    Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules (Informational) - 2 of 3 
    Token: Ron Bonica
  o draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt
    Requirements for address selection mechanisms (Informational) - 3 of 3 
    Token: Ron Bonica

3.1.2 Returning Item
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 Item
NONE
3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
	The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
	found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
	IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
	<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
	that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
	not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
	document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
	therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
	approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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 Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
	Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
	indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
	document shepherd.

	Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
	be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.3.1 New Item
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
    NONE
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
  o Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 1 of 1
    Token: David
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
    NONE
4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
  o Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) (pkix) - 1 of 1
    Token: Tim

5. IAB News We can use

6. Management Issue

 6.1 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)

 6.2 Clarification of registration procedures for RFC 3688 (Michelle Cotton)

 6.3 Should RFC 1701 be updated/obsoleted by RFC 2784? (Russ Housley)

 6.4 URN allocation following RFC 3688 in an IRTF document (Dan Romascanu)

7. Agenda Working Group News

IESG Secretary | 31 Jan 17:52 2008
Picon

IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for February 7, 2008

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-02-07).

1. Administrivia

    1.1 Roll Call
    1.2 Bash the Agenda
    1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
    1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat

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 Item       AreaDate
INT MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document waiting on mip6-hiopt resolutions before it can complete succesful WGLC in DHC WG
Token: Jari Arkko
INT Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman
Token: Jari Arkko
INT DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil
Token: Jari Arkko
INT Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6
draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann
Token: Jari Arkko
INT Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6
draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Mark Townsley
SEC EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6
draft-ietf-hokey-erx-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Tim Polk
2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item
      NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
      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 Item       AreaDate
SEC Handover Key Management and Re-authentication Problem Statement (Informational) - 1 of 3
draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Tim Polk
OPS Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules (Informational) - 2 of 3
draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ron Bonica
OPS Requirements for address selection mechanisms (Informational) - 3 of 3
draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt
Token: Ron Bonica
3.1.2 Returning Item
      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 Item
      NONE
3.2.2 Returning Item
      NONE

3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks 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 Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
document shepherd.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
          3.3.1 New Item
      NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
      NONE

4. Working Group Actions

         

4.1 WG Creation

          4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
          AreaDate
RTG Dec 20 Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 1 of 1
Token: David
         

4.2 WG Rechartering

          4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
          AreaDate
SEC Jan 21 Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) (pkix) - 1 of 1
Token: Tim

5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

6.1 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)
6.2 Clarification of registration procedures for RFC 3688 (Michelle Cotton)
6.3 Should RFC 1701 be updated/obsoleted by RFC 2784? (Russ Housley)
6.4 URN allocation following RFC 3688 in an IRTF document (Dan Romascanu)

7. Working Group News

<div>
<h1>IESG Agenda</h1>
Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-02-07).<br><br><h2>1. Administrivia</h2>
<ul>
1.1 Roll Call<br>
1.2 Bash the Agenda<br>
1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat<br>
1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat<br>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>2. Protocol Actions
</h2>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a<br>
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet<br>
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"
</blockquote>

  
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>2.1 WG Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt">draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2538&amp;filename=draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Document waiting on mip6-hiopt resolutions before it can complete succesful WGLC in DHC WG</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt">draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2597&amp;filename=draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt">draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2641&amp;filename=draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt">draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2656&amp;filename=draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
      <td>Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net">Jari Arkko</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>INT</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt">draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2664&amp;filename=draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:townsley <at> cisco.com">Mark Townsley</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-erx-08.txt">draft-ietf-hokey-erx-08.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2680&amp;filename=draft-ietf-hokey-erx">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
</table>2.1.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>2.2 Individual Submissions</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
2.2.1 New Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>2.2.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>3. Document Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

  <h3>3.1 WG Submissions
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.1.1 New Item
<table>
<tr> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>SEC</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Handover Key Management and Re-authentication Problem Statement (Informational) - 1 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt">draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2606&amp;filename=draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim Polk</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules (Informational) - 2 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt">draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt</a> 
          <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&amp;ballot_id=2682&amp;filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps">[Open Web Ballot]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rbonica <at> juniper.net">Ron Bonica</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>OPS</td>
<td nowrap></td>
<td>Requirements for address selection mechanisms (Informational) - 3 of 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt">draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt</a> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
      <td><a href="mailto:rbonica <at> juniper.net">Ron Bonica</a></td>
</tr>
</table>3.1.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
</h3>
<blockquote>
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable<br>
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If<br>
not, what changes would make it so?"<br>
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.2.1 New Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>3.2.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h3>3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
</h3>
<blockquote>
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not<br>
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The<br>
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG<br>
&lt;X&gt;, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks<br>
that publication is harmful to work in WG &lt;X&gt; and recommends<br>
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this<br>
document violates the IETF procedures for &lt;X&gt; and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG<br>
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an<br>
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should<br>
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.<br><br>
The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in<br>
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG<br>
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions<br>
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the<br>
document shepherd.<br><br>
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will<br>
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
</blockquote>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>
3.3.1 New Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>3.3.2 Returning Item
 <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NONE<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<h2>4. Working Group Actions</h2>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.1 WG Creation</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval<br><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

     <table>
<tr>AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td>RTG</td>
<td>Dec 20</td>
<td>Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:dward <at> cisco.com">David</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

<h3>4.2 WG Rechartering</h3>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  NONE
</td>
</tr></table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval<br><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr>
<td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td>
<td>

     <table>
<tr>AreaDate</tr>
<tr>
<td>SEC</td>
<td>Jan 21</td>
<td>Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) (pkix) - 1 of 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Token:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:tim.polk <at> nist.gov">Tim</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
</td>
</tr></table>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>5. IAB News We Can Use</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2> 6. Management Issues</h2>
6.1 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)<br>6.2 Clarification of registration procedures for RFC 3688 (Michelle Cotton)<br>6.3 Should RFC 1701 be updated/obsoleted by RFC 2784? (Russ Housley)<br>6.4 URN allocation following RFC 3688 in an IRTF document (Dan Romascanu)<br><p></p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>7. Working Group News</h2>
<p>
</p>
</div>

Gmane