From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:00:31 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOMZ-0006Y2-8N; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:00:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOMX-0006Wi-Qb for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:00:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20640 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 06:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.20.225.110] (helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtORb-0005wz-PD for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:05:44 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (frogbits.attlabs.att.com [135.197.129.116]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554DC147B03 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 07:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k02C01NI073949 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 04:00:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k02C01Jt073948 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200601021200.k02C01Jt073948@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ce732c7d36989a1bd55104ba259c40a1 Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-01-05 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-01-05). Updated 2:2:30 EDT, January 2, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.5 Review of Projects 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 SEC Attribute Certificate Policies extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4 draft-ietf-pkix-acpolicies-extn-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the TSV Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4 draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org Token: Allison Mankin OPS Dec 22 Fibre-Channel Name Server MIB (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Bert Wijnen OPS Dec 22 Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Bert Wijnen 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 Area Date Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications TSV Service for Real Time Services in the Internet Protocol Suite (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Allison Mankin Requirements for Consent-Based Communications TSV in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO shepherd Rohan Mahy rohan@ekabal.com Token: Allison Mankin 3.1.2 Returning Item Area Date RTG Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 1 Operations and Management Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched Networks (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07.txt Note: ITU requires an RFC number by December 12th. A Framework for MPLS Operations and Management (OAM) (Informational) draft-ietf-mpls-oam-frmwk-05.txt Token: Alex Zinin 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 MTU and Fragmentation Issues with GEN In-the-Network Tunneling (Informational) - 1 of 3 draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Pekka says that it is ready, and that I should review the int-area discussions, particularly Joe's objection. Token: Mark Townsley SEC The AES-CMAC Algorithm (Informational) - 2 of 3 draft-songlee-aes-cmac-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs for TSV Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) (Informational) - 3 of 3 draft-jennings-sip-voicemail-uri-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Allison Mankin 3.2.2 Returning Item Area Date TSV Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38 MIME Sub-type Registration (Historic) - 1 of 1 draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last Called to Historic for the same reason audio/t140c was - allow registration of a "legacy" because of the way SDP uses these registrations, but make sure this is not a precedent in any way. Token: Allison Mankin 3.3 Individual 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 , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for 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. Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item Area Date PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE) Extensions for INT Credit Flow and Link Metrics (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley 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 Area Date SEC Dec 8 Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim) - 1 of 4 Token: Russ SEC Dec 8 EAP Method Update (emu) - 2 of 4 Token: Sam OPS Dec 8 Diameter Maintanence and Extentions (dime) - 3 of 4 Token: Bert INT Dec 12 Network-based Localized Mobility Management (netlmm) - 4 of 4 Token: Margaret 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review Area Date SEC Dec 19 Transport Layer Security (tls) - 1 of 3 Token: Russ OPS Dec 21 ADSL MIB (adslmib) - 2 of 3 Token: Bert SEC Dec 29 Security Issues in Network Event Logging (syslog) - 3 of 3 Token: Sam 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval Area Date INT Dec 8 Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (pwe3) - 1 of 1 Token: Mark 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:31 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvP-0007Yj-Nl; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EY9K2-0000iu-EB for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15617; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EY9Z5-0003Wd-QY; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:57:41 -0500 Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E436E1638A6; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:41:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 995JkDVpM0304Mo2; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:41:38 GMT Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 994JkDVpK0485Mo2; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:41:36 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:41:36 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID876JkDVpl9294Xo2 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.142]) by gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:41:36 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:41:35 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0201EACC1F@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: RTG dinner Thread-Index: AcXhfxBM7lfE9cI1S1GTiuCz4uXu8wACXAQA From: "Susan Hares" To: "Alex Zinin" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2005 21:41:36.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[88138670:01C5E188] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:26 -0500 Cc: Subject: RE: RTG dinner X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Monday night ack. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]=20 Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 3:33 PM To: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: RTG dinner Folks- How about our regular dinner on Monday night? Both rtg-dir members and chairs are invited. Please ack. --=20 Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:31 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvP-0007Z4-Tx; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EYDLW-0005cd-91 for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:59:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29090; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EYDab-0001vQ-Cb; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:15:30 -0500 Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC9312D248; Sat, 5 Nov 2005 01:59:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 565JkeB8A0015Mo1; Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:59:27 GMT Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 564JkeB8y0056Mo1; Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:59:24 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:59:24 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID611JkeB8y0457Xo1 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.142]) by gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:59:24 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:59:22 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0201EACCF0@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: RTG dinner Thread-Index: AcXhqufIOqx/g4N1SIymv+LvmHUbmAAAZ3Mw From: "Susan Hares" To: "Alex Zinin" , "Bill Fenner" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2005 01:59:24.0259 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B98AB30:01C5E1AC] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:27 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: RTG dinner X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tuesday is fine. sue -----Original Message----- From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]=20 Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:47 PM To: Bill Fenner Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: RTG dinner I could make Tue work. How's everybody else with it? --=20 Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Friday, November 4, 2005, 2:40:12 PM, Bill Fenner wrote: > Actually, can we do Tuesday night? I have a previous engagement on > Monday night. I don't know if many people are planning on going to > the social, which would make this a problem too. > Bill From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007ZR-33; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZAqx-0002qU-Gn for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:32:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24074; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZB6Z-0002Ay-3f; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:48:29 -0500 Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4CB12D608; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:31:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 031JkgRfj0281Mo1; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:31:36 GMT Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 026JkgRfh0234Mo1; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:31:33 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:31:33 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID948JkgRfI0516Xo1 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.141]) by gw2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:31:30 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:31:18 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F027BA9EA@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: RTG dinner Thread-Index: AcXjX1gM7YWfNNtdQF2QKYuXCpyIUQAX/msg From: "Susan Hares" To: "Alex Zinin" , "George Swallow" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2005 17:31:30.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[16E69290:01C5E3C1] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:27 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: RTG dinner X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Ack Tuesday 8:00pm in the Hotel lobby. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]=20 Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:51 AM To: George Swallow Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: RTG dinner OK, folks, let's schedule it for Tue night. Let's meet at 8pm, in the HOTEL Lobby. --=20 Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007Zq-8G; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoXGd-0001jq-Ek for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:30:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24806 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoXIx-0000bp-NG for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:32:44 -0500 Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A63E178A; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:29:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 769JLTcdY0095Mo2; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:29:51 GMT Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 768JLTcdx0149Mo2; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:29:48 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:29:48 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID010JLTcdx4991Xo2 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.142]) by GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:29:48 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:29:46 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C0C1@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Thread-Index: AcYE+kiW99+5oHdZQ4W0J+/EZulByAAEuF2Q From: "Susan Hares" To: "Radia Perlman" , "Alex Zinin" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 02:29:48.0894 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FC09FE0:01C6050D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:27 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Alex: I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful. How do we want to judge this? sue -----Original Message----- From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM To: Alex Zinin Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? Radia Alex Zinin wrote: >Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: > > In case you didn't see this doc: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment -02.txt > > I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a > bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. > > Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: > > =20 > >> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >> =20 >> > > I'd like to hear opinions on this. > > =20 > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007aF-Cy; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoYOv-0000Wr-Ct for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:42:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02114 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from web50701.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.99]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoYRB-0002sb-Uu for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:45:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 89585 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Dec 2005 03:42:41 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ROw/jQwj5JS7ZN3glXzk6QFDzq60DA/wUZQhEdtbRtdOsFIrm7QGV7WqAfmlG7814u/NZdNVlYEGtZXM0Q8IAfGF0tr74KRlllbwikYMPLinDaEkY/ztA5/e5zoshrduslHwiTCLQkScbE6dBkMf7iZVLMm9Fez8mrgcs5cHGMc= ; Message-ID: <20051220034241.89583.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.236.104.186] by web50701.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:42:41 PST Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:42:41 -0800 (PST) From: Rohit Dube To: Alex Zinin , Acee Lindem In-Reply-To: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:24 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hey Alex, I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few people. Best, --rohit. --- Alex Zinin wrote: > Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: > > In case you didn't see this doc: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt > > I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a > bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. > > Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: > > > RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) > > RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) > > RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) > > RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) > > RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) > > RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) > > I'd like to hear opinions on this. > > -- > Alex > http://www.psg.com/~zinin > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007af-HX; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EokKx-0001WC-Pa for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:27:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20121 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EokNO-0001qw-NZ for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0500 Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C90B17E2; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:27:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 267JLTqbm0255Mo1; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:27:14 GMT Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 261JLTqbk0139Mo1; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:27:10 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:27:10 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID684JLTqbk2029Xo1 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.142]) by GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:27:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:27:06 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Thread-Index: AcYFOA8gB3JzBvwxQ4Gb3CJh/92w6QAR1KhA From: "Susan Hares" To: "Radia Perlman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 16:27:10.0155 (UTC) FILETIME=[39E0A9B0:01C60582] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:27 -0500 Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Radia: I guess I'm arguing that work needs to be reconsidered. I think applications/revisions of MOSPF may prove more useful in today's internet. So, is there a DISCUSS group for this? Sue -----Original Message----- From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:36 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Alex Zinin; rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Suppose someone does want to use MOSPF, etc. Moving them to historic=20 doesn't seem to prevent anyone from implementing them. The only way I could imagine it would make any difference is if IPR=20 statements are based on the thing being standard, and if IETF de-standardized something, then it would no longer be royalty free. Radia Susan Hares wrote: >Alex: > >I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful. >How do we want to judge this? > >sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Radia Perlman >Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM >To: Alex Zinin >Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? > >Radia > > > >Alex Zinin wrote: > > =20 > >>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >> >> =20 >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experimen t >-02.txt > =20 > >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >> =20 >> >this. > =20 > >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >>=20 >> >> =20 >> >>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>> =20 >>> >>> =20 >>> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >>=20 >> >> =20 >> > > > > > > > =20 > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007b3-N1; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EordL-0000jj-9c for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:15:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22537 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from web50701.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.99]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eorfp-0004nW-LN for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:17:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 26236 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Dec 2005 00:14:56 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IuIJYyd+fKT0mWE410r8hlCjg9zcWYCqebYmW4oeX1wrPHt6SMtJm/eHdhHna9KxJPN6U+OaZerS7pPyADaikToINhgxyxX81eELA2J8CTv1ZZn6WV84lRTDRG1HtQSN7HxzCvKPUKhBUcOiikkXojRVJtkQA3XMS+eWqnG9nog= ; Message-ID: <20051221001456.26234.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.236.104.186] by web50701.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:14:56 PST Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:14:56 -0800 (PST) From: Rohit Dube To: Alex Zinin In-Reply-To: <431823540.20051220155624@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:24 -0500 Cc: Susan Hares , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hello, I would strongly suggest that we use "recent and ongoing work" as a yardstick for protocols/work-items that have been around for a while rather than "the potential for future work" on the items. Best, --rohit. --- Alex Zinin wrote: > Somehow I missed Sue's argument, so hold it a sec, pls. > > Sue, to clarify, could you explain why you think MOSPF may be more > interesting now, and what do you mean by reconsidering this work? > > One thing I'd like us to try and avoid is concluding something like "we > should try to spend some time thinking about blah" (not putting words in > your mouth, Sue). Now is the time when we think. > > -- > Alex __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 07:36:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtOvQ-0007bR-RY; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eosbd-0001gm-Va for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:17:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00113 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eose8-00074S-Fk for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:20:02 -0500 Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D341973; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:17:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 064JLuBq60383Mo1; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:16:59 GMT Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 062JLuBq50314Mo1; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:16:56 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:16:56 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID787JLuBq51682Xo1 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.142]) by GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:16:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:16:52 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C85B@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Thread-Index: AcYFw5Yf2le8xRrlTDqjtBT88BImBAABxi4g From: "Susan Hares" To: "Rohit Dube" , "Alex Zinin" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2005 01:16:56.0021 (UTC) FILETIME=[3BBAE850:01C605CC] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:36:27 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Acee Lindem Subject: RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Rohit and Alex: My point is that MOSPF has some very good characteristics for the MANET style networks for a single domain. The single domain properties with a modern SPF have good characteristics.=20 Now, I can just go ahead and use the new draft from D. Ward, R. Perlman, R. White, and D. Farinacci on ISIS to MAC Addresses.=20 For layer 3 multicast, it's not clear that MOSPF is a bad idea. But, it's a re-use of an old idea for a new concept. MANET won't touch it. They are constrained to ADOV++ and OLSR++. (By nature or nurture - it doesn't matter what the issues are the same.) So, I wanted to find someplace to discuss it before we dropped it from a standard. =20 Where is that? Radia indicated the only difference was patent - but your email indicated that removing MOSPF would change packets. So before we leap, I just wanted to find a place to chat about this topic.=20 Sue -----Original Message----- From: Rohit Dube [mailto:dube_rohit@yahoo.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:15 PM To: Alex Zinin Cc: Acee Lindem; Susan Hares; rtg-dir@ietf.org; Radia Perlman; Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Hello, I would strongly suggest that we use "recent and ongoing work"=20 as a yardstick for protocols/work-items that have been around=20 for a while rather than "the potential for future work" on the items. Best, --rohit. --- Alex Zinin wrote: > Somehow I missed Sue's argument, so hold it a sec, pls. >=20 > Sue, to clarify, could you explain why you think MOSPF may be more > interesting now, and what do you mean by reconsidering this work? >=20 > One thing I'd like us to try and avoid is concluding something like "we > should try to spend some time thinking about blah" (not putting words in > your mouth, Sue). Now is the time when we think. >=20 > --=20 > Alex __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20 http://mail.yahoo.com=20 From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 03 13:22:29 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Etqnl-0007M5-4L; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:22:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Etqnj-0007Ly-SB for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:22:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06580 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Etqt2-0005eq-TS for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:27:58 -0500 Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67A316A5; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:22:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 116kacswi0008Mo2; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:22:10 GMT Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 109kacswH0057Mo2; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:22:07 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from gw3.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:22:07 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com gw3.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID948kacswH4699Xo2 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.141]) by gw3.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:22:06 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:22:02 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B69141@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Thread-Index: AcYPmgIxYMFt5l2iQd69QRwcEy0FhgA+IIbQ From: "Susan Hares" To: "Rohit Dube" , "Alex Zinin" , "Acee Lindem" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2006 18:22:06.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A439DB0:01C61092] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Alex, Rohit and Acee: How about we put it to historic and I submit a work-item to OSPF? sue -----Original Message----- From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rohit Dube Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:43 PM To: Alex Zinin; Acee Lindem Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Hey Alex, I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF=20 work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few=20 people. Best, --rohit. --- Alex Zinin wrote: > Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >=20 > In case you didn't see this doc: > =20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment -02.txt >=20 > I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a > bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. >=20 > Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >=20 > > RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) > > RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) > > RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) > > RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) > > RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) > > RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >=20 > I'd like to hear opinions on this. >=20 > --=20 > Alex > http://www.psg.com/~zinin >=20 >=20 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20 http://mail.yahoo.com=20 From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 03 13:47:02 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtrBW-0004C6-4i; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtrBU-0004Bu-SA for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10608 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrGo-0006g7-Ht for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:52:31 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2006 10:46:48 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k03IkmGx013517; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:46:47 -0800 Received: from [10.21.80.252] ([10.21.80.252]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:46:47 -0800 Message-ID: <43BAC696.7070301@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:46:46 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Susan Hares References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B69141@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B69141@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2006 18:46:47.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CEE4B00:01C61096] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Susan Hares wrote: >Alex, Rohit and Acee: > >How about we put it to historic and I submit a work-item to OSPF? > > Hi Sue, I'm not sure I understand what the work item would be or even precisely the requirement. Thanks, Acee >sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Rohit Dube >Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:43 PM >To: Alex Zinin; Acee Lindem >Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Hey Alex, > >I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF >work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the >working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal >of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure >that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure >that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is >what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few >people. > >Best, >--rohit. > >--- Alex Zinin wrote: > > > >>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >> >> >> >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment >-02.txt > > >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and >> >> >a > > >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >> >> >this. > > >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >> >> >>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>> >>> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >>-- >>Alex >>http://www.psg.com/~zinin >> >> >> >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 03 13:49:25 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtrDp-0004Js-1d; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:49:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtrDn-0004Jh-Q5 for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:49:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10876 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrJ7-0006lG-2Q for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:54:54 -0500 Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E781F1B32; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:49:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 329kacsxF0188Mo1; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:49:06 GMT Received: from gateout01.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout01.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 327kacsxD0013Mo1; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:49:03 GMT X-USANET-Routed: 2 gwsout-vs R:localhost:1825 Received: from GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:49:03 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN skh@nexthop.com GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID549kacsxD2004Xo1 Received: from VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.116.208.141]) by GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:49:03 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:49:00 -0700 Message-ID: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B691A4@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Thread-Topic: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Thread-Index: AcYQlhFvXmo6eRw0T/+x+8AaVQG7EAAACnlw From: "Susan Hares" To: "Acee Lindem" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2006 18:49:03.0137 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DCB2110:01C61096] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Rohit Dube Subject: RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Acee: Work suggestion: A draft for Multicast OSPF for the Wireless environment. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:47 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: Rohit Dube; Alex Zinin; rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? Susan Hares wrote: >Alex, Rohit and Acee: > >How about we put it to historic and I submit a work-item to OSPF? > =20 > Hi Sue, I'm not sure I understand what the work item would be or even precisely=20 the requirement. Thanks, Acee >sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Rohit Dube >Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:43 PM >To: Alex Zinin; Acee Lindem >Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Hey Alex, > >I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF=20 >work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the >working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal >of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure >that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure >that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is >what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few=20 >people. > >Best, >--rohit. > >--- Alex Zinin wrote: > > =20 > >>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >>=20 >> >> =20 >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experimen t >-02.txt > =20 > >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and >> =20 >> >a > =20 > >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >> =20 >> >this. > =20 > >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >> =20 >> >>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>> =20 >>> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >>--=20 >>Alex >>http://www.psg.com/~zinin >> >> >> =20 >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around=20 >http://mail.yahoo.com=20 > > > > > > =20 > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 06 17:09:31 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Euzm7-0000Aq-FC; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:09:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Euzm5-0000Ak-Nz for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:09:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16025 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Euzs2-0003gt-Ex for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:15:40 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2006 14:09:18 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,339,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="1764421375:sNHT34611962" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k06M9HQJ011926; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:09:17 -0500 Received: from [10.82.241.204] ([10.82.241.204]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:09:16 -0500 Message-ID: <43BEEA8B.70209@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:09:15 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Susan Hares References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B691A4@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F0202B691A4@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2006 22:09:16.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5912680:01C6130D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Sue, Irrespective of what we do with MOSPF, this new work would be subject to the same acceptance criteria as any other OSPF WG charter addition. Thanks, Acee Susan Hares wrote: >Acee: > >Work suggestion: A draft for Multicast OSPF for the Wireless >environment. > >Sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@cisco.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:47 PM >To: Susan Hares >Cc: Rohit Dube; Alex Zinin; rtg-dir@ietf.org >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Susan Hares wrote: > > > >>Alex, Rohit and Acee: >> >>How about we put it to historic and I submit a work-item to OSPF? >> >> >> >> >Hi Sue, > >I'm not sure I understand what the work item would be or even precisely >the requirement. > >Thanks, >Acee > > > >>sue >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Rohit Dube >>Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:43 PM >>To: Alex Zinin; Acee Lindem >>Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? >> >>Hey Alex, >> >>I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF >>work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the >>working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal >>of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure >>that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure >>that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is >>what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few >>people. >> >>Best, >>--rohit. >> >>--- Alex Zinin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >>> >>> In case you didn't see this doc: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experimen >> >> >t > > >>-02.txt >> >> >> >> >>> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>a >> >> >> >> >>> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >>> >>> >>> >>> >>this. >> >> >> >> >>> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >>> >>>-- >>>Alex >>>http://www.psg.com/~zinin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 16 07:01:50 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EyT3W-00070C-Mr; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EyT3U-0006zj-Or for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06700 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:00:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EyTBP-0005v9-LQ for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:10:00 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (frogbits.attlabs.att.com [135.197.129.116]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DD7147C28 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0GC0UXA087760 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:00:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k0GC0U6R087759 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:00:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:00:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200601161200.k0GC0U6R087759@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a4cdc653ecdd96665f2aa1c1af034c9e Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-01-19 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-01-19). Updated 2:2:30 EDT, January 16, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.5 Review of Projects 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 TSV Definition of Managed Objects for SCSI Entities (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 11 draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last Call ends 16 Jan - Last Call comment from Bert is handled in Note to RFC Editor; PROTO shepherd black_david@emc.com Token: Allison Mankin SEC Group Security Policy Token v1 (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 11 draft-ietf-msec-policy-token-sec-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley APP Sieve Email Filtering: Vacation Extension (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 11 draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Document shepherd is Cyrus Daboo Token: Scott Hollenbeck INT HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 11 draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-05.txt Note: 1/12/06: Waiting for -06 version to address LC comments. The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Olafur Gudmundsson . Token: Margaret Wasserman APP LDAP: Internationalized String Preparation (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 11 draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): APP Syntaxes and Matching Rules (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 11 draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie APP LDAP: Schema for User Applications (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 11 draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-10.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie INT Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 11 draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley TSV Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 9 of 11 RTP Payload Format for MIDI (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 11 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-14.txt Note: PROTO shepherd magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; IETF LC ends Jan 20. An Implementation Guide for RTP MIDI (Informational) draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-14.txt Note: PROTO shepherd magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Token: Allison Mankin INT PWE3 Frame Check Sequence Retention (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 11 draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley SEC IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) (Proposed Standard) - 11 of 11 draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Proto shepherd is Jari Arkko Token: Russ Housley 2.1.2 Returning Item Area Date INT Virtual Private LAN Service (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide." Token: Mark Townsley INT Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide." Token: Mark Townsley 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date APP Considerations for LDAP Extensions (BCP) - 1 of 1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-ext-09.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie 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 Area Date Architecture for the Use of PE-PE IPsec INT Tunnels in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs (Experimental) - 1 of 4 draft-ietf-l3vpn-ipsec-2547-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley Service Requirements for Layer 2 Provider INT Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (Informational) - 2 of 4 draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley SEC ECC Cipher Suites for TLS (Informational) - 3 of 4 draft-ietf-tls-ecc-12.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Proto shepherd is Eric Rescorla . Token: Russ Housley INT DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) Options (Informational) - 4 of 4 draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Ralph Droms . Token: Margaret Wasserman 3.1.2 Returning Item NONE 3.1.3 For Action Area Date A Lexicography for the Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching RTG (GMPLS) Terminology within The Context of the ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Architecture (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-06.txt Note: The ITU-T wishes to refer to this document in G.8081 Amendment, to be consented in their meeting Feb 6 to Feb 17 so we should request expedited publication by February 10th. Token: Bill Fenner 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 The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) RAI P-User-Database Private-Header (P-Header) (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-camarillo-sipping-user-database-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: RFC 3427 review for P-Header conducted on SIPPING list by Dean Willis Token: Allison Mankin 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual 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 , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for 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. Other matters may be recorded in comments to 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 Area Date TSV Jan 13 Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (speermint) - 1 of 1 Token: Allison 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 Area Date OPS Dec 21 ADSL MIB (adslmib) - 1 of 1 Token: Bert 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 30 07:02:03 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3XjP-0001Pc-I0; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:02:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3XjL-0001Ia-R6 for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17044 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.20.225.110] (helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3Xu0-000149-32 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:13:00 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (frogbits.attlabs.att.com [135.197.129.116]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DBE88E5 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0UC0Tbm031736 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:00:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k0UC0Ti0031735 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:00:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:00:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200601301200.k0UC0Ti0031735@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1924de3f9fb68e58c31920136007eb1 Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-02-02 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-02-02). Updated 2:2:39 EDT, January 30, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.5 Review of Projects 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 APP LDAP: Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 12 draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-18.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie RTG Definition of an RRO node-id subobject (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 12 draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Alex Zinin RTG Anycast-RP using PIM (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 12 draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: A -05 is coming to fix the Security Considerations to point just to pim-sm-v2-new and to fix some minor reference issues. Token: Bill Fenner INT Virtual Private LAN Service (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 12 draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide." Token: Mark Townsley INT Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 12 draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide." Token: Mark Townsley APP Lemonade Profile (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 12 draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie INT The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 12 draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: The PROTO shepherd for this document is Olaf Kolkman . Token: Margaret Wasserman A Resource Reservation Protocol Extension for TSV the Reduction of Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 12 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-bw-reduction-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Allison Mankin Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST SEC R 34.10-94 and GOST R 34.10-2001 algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 12 draft-ietf-smime-gost-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): APP Technical Specification Road Map (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 12 draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie SEC Kerberos Cryptosystem Negotiation Extension (Proposed Standard) - 11 of 12 draft-zhu-kerb-enctype-nego-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Proto shepherd: jhutz@cmu.edu Token: Sam Hartman RAI RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1) (Proposed Standard) - 12 of 12 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org Token: Allison Mankin 2.1.2 Returning Item NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date SEC The AES-CMAC-96 Algorithm and its use with IPsec (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3 draft-songlee-aes-cmac-96-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley APP Collected extensions to IMAP4 ABNF (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3 draft-melnikov-imap-ext-abnf-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Scott Hollenbeck APP COSINE LDAP/X.500 Schema (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3 draft-zeilenga-ldap-cosine-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie 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 SEC US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA) (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-eastlake-sha2-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual 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 , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for 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. Other matters may be recorded in comments to 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 Area Date TSV Jan 13 Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (speermint) - 1 of 1 Token: Allison 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review Area Date GEN Jan 26 Intellectual Property Rights (ipr) - 1 of 1 Token: Brian 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News