Gen-ART Review Assignments for 25 Sept 2008

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
RAI		Example calls flows of race conditions in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (BCP) - 1 of 8
		draft-ietf-sipping-race-examples-05.txt
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	Ben Campbell (already reviewed for LC)

RTG		ForCES Forwarding Element Model (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 8
		draft-ietf-forces-model-15.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Elwyn Davies (reviewed -14 for LC)

OPS		CAPWAP Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 8
		draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (reviewed -11 for LC)

OPS		CAPWAP Access Controller DHCP Option (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 8
		draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Francis Dupont (already reviewed for LC)

RTG		ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 8
		draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (reviewed -02 for LC)

TSV		RPCSEC_GSS Version 2 (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 8
		draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (spencer.shepler@gmail.com)
	Token:	Lars Eggert
	Reviewer:	Scott Brim (already reviewed for LC)

INT		Mobility Services Framework Design (MSFD) (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 8
		draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jari Arkko
	Reviewer:	David Black (already reviewed for LC)

OPS		CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 8
		draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (reviewed -07 for LC)

2.1.2 Returning Item


Area	Date
RTG		Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-15.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Elwyn Davies (reviewed -14 for 24 Jan 2008 Telechat)

RTG		Representing multi-value time in MANETs (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray (reviewed -04 for 24 Jan 2008 Telechat)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
GEN		WebDAV Current Principal Extension (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-sanchez-webdav-current-principal-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Lisa Dusseault
	Reviewer:	Christian Vogt

2.2.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
APP		URI Scheme for GSM Short Message Service (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-wilde-sms-uri-16.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Lisa Dusseault
	Reviewer:	Miguel Garcia (already reviewed for 11 Sept 2008)

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

Area	Date
OPS		CAPWAP Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments (Informational) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Gonzalo Camarillo (reviewed -01 for LC)

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
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE