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

Pls review documents on IESG Agenda for September 1, 2005

MIB Doctors,

as always, pls review, specifically from an NM/SNMP/MIB viewpoint. 
I need your comments (if any) no later than Wednesday August 31st.

Note that at this stage of the process, the main purpose of 
the review is to check if you see major issues or any fatal flaws.

Minor issues or typos/language issues can be reported, but pls 
mark them as such, so that the authors can work on them if 
a new rev needs to be done anyway.

Thanks, Bert
-------------------------
                                                                                
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-tls-rfc3546bis-01.txt
    Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 10 
    Token: Russ Housley
  o Three-document ballot:  - 2 of 10
     - draft-ietf-lemonade-urlauth-07.txt
       Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - URLAUTH Extension (Proposed 
       Standard) 
     - draft-ietf-lemonade-burl-02.txt
       Message Submission BURL Extension (Proposed Standard) 
     - draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-05.txt
       Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) CATENATE Extension (Proposed 
       Standard) 
    Token: Ted Hardie
  o draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-15.txt
    RTP Payload Format for 3GPP Timed Text (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 10 
    Note: PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com 
    Token: Allison Mankin
  o draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt
    Quota and Size Properties for DAV Collections (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 10 
    Token: Ted Hardie
  o draft-ietf-pkix-crlaia-02.txt
    Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Authority Information Access CRL 
    Extension (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 10 
    Note: proto shepherd: tim.polk@nist.gov 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-ietf-secsh-newmodes-05.txt
    SSH Transport Layer Encryption Modes (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 10 
    Note: proto shepherd: sommerfeld@sun.com 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-ietf-secsh-break-04.txt
    Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension (Proposed Standard) - 7 
    of 10 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-05.txt
    The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 10 
    Note: Last Call will end 9/2.Aa The companion mmusic document. got its Last 
    Call ending 9/1 and this one slipped over to the next day.Aa  . If 
    IETF wide issues arise, it is possible to remove. the document from the 
    closely following IESG consideration.  IETF Last Call review is 
    encouraged! 
    Token: Allison Mankin
  o draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bfcp-02.txt
    Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol 
    (BFCP) Streams (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 10 
    Note: PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org. IETF Last Call for 
    this document ends 9/1.Aa If there IETF wide issues arise, it is possible 
    to remove. the document from the closely following IESG consideration.Aa 
    IETF Last Call review is encouraged! 
    Token: Allison Mankin
  o draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-10.txt
    GSSAPI Authentication and Key Exchange for the Secure Shell Protocol 
    (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 10 
    Token: Sam Hartman

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-03.txt
    Certificate Extensions and Attributes Supporting Authentication in 
    Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) and Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) 
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Note: proto shepherd: tim.polk@nist.gov. Back on the agenda to see where we 
    are with Mark's discus. 
    Token: Sam Hartman


2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
  o draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-03.txt
    Improved Arcfour Modes for the Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol 
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 
    Token: Sam Hartman
  o draft-hoffman-rfc3664bis-04.txt
    The AES-XCBC-PRF-128 Algorithm for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) 
    (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 
    Token: Russ Housley

2.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
2.2.3 For Action
  o draft-ekrema-smldn-00.txt
    Standardization of Multilingualizing Domain Names(MLDN) (Proposed Standard) 
    - 1 of 1 
    Note: On the agenda to request IESG support for a DNP response to this 
    document (see ballot write-up and technical reviews in the tracker comments 
    section, as they become available). 
    Token: Margaret Wasserman

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-mip6-mipext-advapi-04.txt
    Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6 (Informational) - 1 of 2 
    Token: Margaret Wasserman
  o draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
    Neighbor Discovery Proxies (ND Proxy) (Experimental) - 2 of 2 
    Token: Margaret Wasserman

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-garcia-sipping-poc-isb-am-03.txt
    A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package and Data Format for 
    Various Settings in Support for the Push-to-talk Over Cellular (PoC) 
    Service (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Forwarded by SIPPING WG's Expert Reviewer, Gonzalo Camarillo, per RFC 
    3427. Sent for ietf-types review Aug 6 
    Token: Allison Mankin

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.2.3 For Action
  o draft-hendrikx-wallis-urn-nzl-00.txt
    A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Formal Namespace for the New Zealand 
    Government (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Sent to URN-NID for review 
    Token: Ted Hardie
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
	<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.
                                                                                              
	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