Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] IESG Telechat Agenda (HTML) for October 9, 2008

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:08:33 -0700 (PDT)

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-10-09).

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

Area
Date

RAI

Transmission Time offsets in RTP streams (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6

draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-07.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Note: Tom Taylor is the PROTO Shepherd

Token:

Cullen Jennings

RAI

Example calls flows of race conditions in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (BCP) - 2 of 6

draft-ietf-sipping-race-examples-06.txt

Token:

Jon Peterson

RTG

ForCES Forwarding Element Model (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6

draft-ietf-forces-model-15.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ross Callon

OPS

CAPWAP Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6

draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-13.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Dan Romascanu

OPS

CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6

draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-10.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Dan Romascanu

RAI

RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.711.1 (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6

draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Note: Roni Even is the document shepherd.

Token:

Cullen Jennings

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

NONE

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

Area
Date

GEN

JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile (Informational) - 1 of 1

draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

David Ward

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

Area
Date

SEC

Syntax for binding documents with time stamps (Informational) - 1 of 1

draft-santoni-timestampeddata-04.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Tim Polk

3.3.2 Returning Item

Area
Date

GEN

Guidelines for Using the Privacy Mechanism for SIP (Informational) - 1 of 2

draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline-04.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Note: Proposing that this use RFC3932 Note 2:       This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
RFC 3932 for more information.

Token:

Jon Peterson

GEN

MANET Autoconfiguration using Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) (Informational) - 2 of 2

draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-16.txt
[Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ross Callon

3.3.3 For Action

Area
Date

GEN

PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE) Extensions for Credit Flow and Link Metrics (Informational) - 1 of 1

draft-bberry-rfc4938bis-00.txt

Token:

Russ Housley

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

6.1 Referencing Non-Standardized Technology in IETF Documents (Dave Ward)

6.2 Expert Review for tel reg (Cullen Jennings)

7. Working Group News

_______________________________________________
IESG-AGENDA-DIST mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-agenda-dist