IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-08-14).

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

Area	Date
TSV		Information Model and XML Data Model for Traceroute Measurements (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6
		draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Document sheperd is Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net)
	Token:	Lars Eggert
	Reviewer:	Pasi Eronen (reviewed for LC)

SEC		TLS Transport Mapping for Syslog (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6
		draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-13.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Pasi Eronen
	Reviewer:	Scott Brim (already reviewed for LC)

INT		Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowires (PW) Management (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6
		draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-14.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Mark Townsley
	Reviewer:	Francis Dupont (reviewed -12 for LC in Nov 2007)

TSV		Guidelines for Application Designers on Using Unicast UDP (BCP) - 4 of 6
		draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-09.txt
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	David Black (Ben was assigned LC due 8/4 -- BUT Ben is on vacation through 8/11)

OPS		Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6
		draft-ietf-opsawg-snmp-engineid-discovery-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Brian Carpenter (reviewed -02 for LC)

APP		Internet Message Store Events (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6
		draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Lisa Dusseault
	Reviewer:	Miguel Garcia (reviewed -05 for LC: Ready) (Miguel is on "sabbatical" due to relocation)

2.1.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
TSV		A Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Document Shepherd: Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net)
	Token:	Lars Eggert
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (reviewed -08 for LC)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
INT		IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-manner-router-alert-iana-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jari Arkko
	Reviewer:	Brian Carpenter (already reviewed for LC)

SEC		Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing, Fraud, and Other Crimeware (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Brian Carpenter (reviewed -04 for LC)

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
GEN		Basic Password Exchange within the Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP-FAST) (Informational) - 1 of 3
		draft-zhou-emu-fast-gtc-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (reviewed -03 for LC)

GEN		Dynamic Provisioning using Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP-FAST) (Informational) - 2 of 3
		draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Vijay Gurbani (reviewed -08 for LC)

RAI		Media Gateway Control Protocol Fax Package (Informational) - 3 of 3
		draft-andreasen-mgcp-fax-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)

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
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE