[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Please review documents on IESG Agenda for MONDAY, September 27, 2004



AAA-Doctors,

The coming IESG teleconference is earlier than normal
(Monday instead of Thursday).
So we need to get reviews done earlier.

Pls review from AAA, DIameter and Radius perspectives.

I need your comments/issues (if any) by Monday morning 27 sept
my time. (so say late Sunday US time). Earlier is always better.

Thanks, Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: IESG Secretary [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 00:51
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: bfuller@foretec.com; amyk@foretec.com
Subject: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for MONDAY, September 27, 2004
Telechat



          INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the September 27, 2004 IESG Teleconference

This agenda was generated at 18:3:0 EDT, September 20, 2004
                                                                                
1. Administrivia
                                                                                
                                                                                
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-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-15.txt
    Management Information Base for Data Over Cable Service Interface 
    Specification (DOCSIS) Cable Modem Termination Systems for Subscriber 
    Management (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4 
    Token: Bert Wijnen
  o draft-ietf-ipcdn-bpiplus-mib-14.txt
    Management Information Base for DOCSIS Cable Modems and Cable Modem 
    Termination Systems for Baseline Privacy Plus (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4 
    Token: Bert Wijnen
  o Three-document ballot:  - 3 of 4
     - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-11.txt
       DNS Security Introduction and Requirements (Proposed Standard) 
       Note: 2004-09-03: AD review uncovered only minor issues, will start 
       IETF. LC. Note: the following documents will be processed together as a 
       set:. draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-11.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-09.txt 
     - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt
       Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed 
       Standard) 
       Note: 2004-09-03: AD review uncovered only minor issues, will start 
       IETF. LC. Note: the following documents will be processed together as a 
       set:. draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-11.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-09.txt. . 
     - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-09.txt
       Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard) 
       Note: 2004-09-03: AD review uncovered only minor issues, will start 
       IETF. LC. Note: the following documents will be processed together as a 
       set:. draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-11.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt. 
       draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-09.txt. . 
  - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt2
    Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard) 
  - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-09.txt2
    Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard) 
    Token: Thomas Narten
  o draft-ietf-pkix-certstore-http-08.txt
    Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate 
    Store Access via HTTP (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 
    Token: Russ Housley

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt
    Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (Proposed Standard) 
    - 1 of 1 
    Note: Back to clear Steve's DISCUSS and for review of other minor changes. 
    html diffs are available from:. http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/ 
    Participant in PROTO Team pilot:. Working Group Chair Followup of DISCUSS 
    Comments. 
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-01.txt 
    Token: David Kessens


2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
  o draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-06.txt
    Policy Core Extension Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Schema 
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 
    Note: IETF Last Call ends on 22 Sept. Sofar I have not seen any Last Call 
    comments. so I am putting it on Spet 27 agenda. 
    Token: Bert Wijnen
  o draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-02.txt
    Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints (BCP) - 2 of 2 
    Token: Bill Fenner

2.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-phillips-langtags-06.txt
    Tags for Identifying Languages (BCP) - 1 of 1 
    Token: Ted Hardie


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
  o Two-document ballot:  - 1 of 1
     - draft-ietf-nsis-fw-06.txt
       Next Steps in Signaling: Framework (Informational) 
     - draft-ietf-nsis-threats-05.txt
       Security Threats for NSIS (Informational) 
  - draft-ietf-nsis-fw-06.txt2
    Next Steps in Signaling: Framework (Informational) 
    Token: Allison Mankin


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-royer-calsch-cap-00.txt
    Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) (Experimental) - 1 of 1 
    Note: This document is the successor to the draft-calsch-cap-13. As part of 
    the closure of the CALSCH working group, the chairs, author, and I agreed 
    that it should go forward as experimental to document the point the group 
    reached. 
    Token: Ted Hardie

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor
	Reviews should focus on these questions: "Does this document
	represent an end run around the IETF's working groups
	or its procedures? Does this document present an incompatible
	change to IETF technologies as if it were compatible?" Other
	matters may be sent to the RFC Editor in private review.

3.3.1 New Item
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE