[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Pls review documents on IESG Agenda for June 10, 2004 Telechat
I think that a clarification would be necessary whether the text in Section 4 of draft-ymbk-downref-02.txt refers only to Experimental specifications, or could apply to other non-standard tracks documents like Internet-Drafts.
If the waiver is only for documents including specifications of experimental protocols, I suggest the following change:
OLD
'This document
explicitely allows BCP documents to contain normative references to
non-Standards Track documents.'
NEW
'This document
explicitly allows BCP documents to contain normative references to
non-Standards Track documents containing specifications of Experimental protocols.'
NB - my speller also replaced 'explicitely' by 'explicitly'.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: 04 June, 2004 1:29 AM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Pls review documents on IESG Agenda for June 10,
> 2004 Telechat
>
>
> Pls review from an NM and SNMP/MIB point of view.
>
> There are some MIB documents on the agenda, namely:
>
> o draft-ietf-tewg-mib-08.txt (PS)
> o draft-ietf-nat-natmib-09.txt (PS)
>
> You may also want to check
>
> o draft-ymbk-downref-02.txt (BCP)
>
> Feedback rather sooner than later, but certainly before noon
> (European time) on Thursday June 10th).
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IESG Secretary [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
> Sent: donderdag 3 juni 2004 22:26
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: bfuller@foretec.com; amyk@foretec.com
> Subject: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for June 10, 2004 Telechat
>
> ---- on IESG agenda ---
>
> 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 Two-document ballot: - 1 of 5
> - draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-01.txt
> BGP/MPLS IP VPNs (Proposed Standard)
> - draft-ietf-l3vpn-as2547-05.txt
> Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs (Informational)
> Token: Thomas Narten
> o draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-08.txt
> The tel URI for Telephone Numbers (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 5
> Token: Jon Peterson
> o draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt
> Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol (Proposed
> Standard) - 3 of 5
> Token: Russ Housley
> o draft-ietf-tewg-mib-08.txt
> A Traffic Engineering MIB (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5
> Note: Participant in PROTO Team pilot:. Workgroup Chair
> Followup of AD
> Evaluation Comments.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-commen
> ts-pilot-00.txt
> Token: Bert Wijnen
> o draft-ietf-send-ndopt-05.txt
> SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 5
> Token: Margaret Wasserman
>
> 2.1.2 Returning Item
> NONE
>
> 2.2 Individual Submissions
> 2.2.1 New Item
> o draft-ietf-nat-natmib-09.txt
> Definitions of Managed Objects for Network Address
> Translators (NAT)
> (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3
> Note: Significant revs for 09 included: only range of
> addresses is
> writable; it is clearly stated that configuration and.
> monitoring covers
> only NAT functions, not any ancillary firewall policy
> functions.? A
> re-review for MIB checking. is being done before IETF LC
> for PS (as an
> indiv. subm).
> Token: Allison Mankin
> o draft-ymbk-downref-02.txt
> Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer
> Normatively to
> Documents at a Lower Level (BCP) - 2 of 3
> Token: Harald Alvestrand
> o draft-klensin-process-july14-02.txt
> A model for IETF Process Experiments (BCP) - 3 of 3
> Token: Harald Alvestrand
>
> 2.2.2 Returning Item
> NONE
>
> 3. Document Actions
>
> 3.1 WG Submissions
> Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this
> document a reasonable
> contribution to the area of Internet engineering which
> it covers? If
> not, what changes would make it so?"
>
> 3.1.1 New Item
> o draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-terminology-01.txt
> PPVPN terminology (Informational) - 1 of 6
> Note: 2004-06-03: revised ID submitted to cleanup some
> formatting issues,
> no substantive change. Putting on telechat agenda even
> though -01 has not
> appeared yet.
> Token: Thomas Narten
> o draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt
> Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition (Informational) - 2 of 6
> Note: Participant in PROTO Team pilot:. Working Group
> Chair Followup of
> DISCUSS Comments.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-d
> iscuss-pilot-01.txt
> Token: David Kessens
> o draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07.txt
> Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS
> (Informational) - 3 of
> 6
> Note: Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair
> Followup of AD
> Evaluation Comments
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-commen
> ts-pilot-00.txt
> Token: David Kessens
> o draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-01.txt
> Common Misbehavior against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses
> (Informational) -
> 4 of 6
> Note: Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair
> Followup of AD
> Evaluation Comments
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-commen
ts-pilot-00.txt
Token: David Kessens
o draft-ietf-mboned-mroutesec-01.txt
PIM-SM Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements (Informational) -
5 of 6
Token: David Kessens
o draft-ietf-rtgwg-igp-shortcut-01.txt
Calculating IGP Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels (Informational) - 6
of 6
Token: Alex Zinin
3.1.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"
3.2.1 New Item
o draft-walker-ieee802-req-01.txt
EAP Method Requirements for Wireless LANs (Informational) - 1 of 1
Token: Margaret Wasserman
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
o draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-04.txt
Bandwidth Constraints Models for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering:
Performance Evaluation (Informational) - 1 of 1
Token: Bert Wijnen
3.3.2 Returning Item
o draft-dfncis-netnews-admin-sys-06.txt
Netnews Administration System (NAS) (Experimental) - 1 of 1
Note: Re-review in light of new procedures for individual submissions via
the RFC Editor. This one has been in the IESG's hands for two years!
Token: Scott Hollenbeck