Subject: IESG agenda for 2009-02-12 telechat.
From: [email-masked] (Bill Fenner)
To: [email-masked] (Routing Area Directorate)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 04:00:02 -0800 (PST)
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next
Telechat (2009-02-12).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
RTG  Feb 05 Dissemination of flow specification rules (Proposed
            Standard)
            draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: David Ward
TSV  Feb 05 A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric (Proposed Standard)
            draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate
     Token: Lars Eggert

2.1.2 Returning Item

Area  Date
RTG  Feb 05 ForCES Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard)
            draft-ietf-forces-protocol [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Ross Callon
RTG  Feb 05 The RPF Vector TLV (Proposed Standard)
            draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: David Ward

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area  Date
GEN  Feb 05 IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution
            Protocol (ARP) (Proposed Standard)
            draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules [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

Area  Date
APP  Feb 05 Downgrading mechanism for Email Address
            Internationalization (Experimental)
            draft-ietf-eai-downgrade [Open Web Ballot]
            Note: Harald Alvestrand is document shepherd
     Token: Chris Newman
            Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent
RTG  Feb 05 Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized
            Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network
            (Informational)
            draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Ross Callon
RTG  Feb 05 Description of the RSVP-TE Graceful Restart Procedures
            (Informational)
            draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Ross Callon

3.1.2 Returning Item

Area  Date
INT  Feb 06 Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN
            Services (Informational)
            draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Mark Townsley

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

Area  Date
GEN  Feb 05 Analysis of Inter-Domain Routing Requirements and History
            (Historic)
            draft-irtf-routing-history [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Ross Callon
GEN  Feb 05 A Set of Possible Requirements for a Future Routing
            Architecture (Historic)
            draft-irtf-routing-reqs [Open Web Ballot]
     Token: Ross Callon

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

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 late IPR declarations (Jari Arkko)

6.2 Document Submission cutoff for IETF 74 (Tim Polk)

6.3 IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE (Russ Housley)

6.4 Potential Notes in EAP-FAST Documents (Russ Housley)

6.5 Request for ATOM Link Relation [IANA #209057] (Michelle Cotton)

6.6 ATOM Link Relations requests [IANA #221766] (Michelle Cotton)

7. Working Group News

Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Review needed for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:36:52 -0500
From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>, David Ward <[email-masked]>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C99838.D0156F9D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dave and I would like one or more reviewers to volunteer to take a
careful look at:

=20

            Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture

            draft-ietf-pcn-architecture

=20

This is a document which pretty clearly has significant implications on
routers. If possible we would like this review within about 10 days (so
that the routing ADs can take a good look at the review and I can update
my associated DISCUSS vote prior to the telechat two weeks from today).=20

=20

Thanks, Ross

------_=_NextPart_001_01C99838.D0156F9D
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
pre
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>Dave and I would like one or more reviewers to volunteer to take =
a
careful look at:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
; Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) =
Architecture<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
; draft-ietf-pcn-architecture<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>This is a document which pretty clearly has significant =
implications on
routers. If possible we would like this review within about 10 days (so =
that
the routing ADs can take a good look at the review and I can update my
associated DISCUSS vote prior to the telechat two weeks from today). =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks, Ross</span></font><font face=3D"Courier New"><span
style=3D'font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C99838.D0156F9D--