Gen-ART Review Assignments for 11 Sept 2008

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-09-11).


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
      AreaDate
APPSieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
  Token: Lisa Dusseault
  Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC)
     
2.1.2 Returning Item
      AreaDate
RAISession Initiation Protocol Service Examples (BCP) - 1 of 2
draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-15.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Shopping for more positions.
Token: Jon Peterson
  Reviewer:Brian Carpenter (reviewed -14: Ready)
    
TSVUnicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers (BCP) - 2 of 2
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
  Token: Magnus Westerlund
  Reviewer: Ben Campbell (reviewed -09 for 8/14: Mostly ready)
   

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item
      AreaDate
APPURI Scheme for GSM Short Message Service (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
draft-wilde-sms-uri-16.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Lisa Dusseault
  Reviewer:Miguel Garcia   (Michael Patton reviewed -13 for LC in July 2007: Mostly ready )
    
APPWeb Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) SEARCH (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
draft-reschke-webdav-search-18.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: AD is shepherding
  Token: Chris Newman
  Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo (reviewed -17 for LC: Ready)
   
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
      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
      AreaDate
INTWiMAX Forum/3GPP2 Proxy Mobile IPv4 (Informational) - 1 of 3
draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Jari Arkko
SECCredential Protection Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Experimental) - 2 of 3
draft-hajjeh-tls-identity-protection-06.txt
Token: Pasi Eronen
INTThe Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL) (Experimental) - 3 of 3
draft-templin-seal-23.txt
Token: Mark Townsley
3.3.2 Returning Item
      NONE