Gen-ART Review Assignments for 6 November 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
SEC		EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Method (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 7
		draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-16.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: document shepherd: Joe Salowey <jsalowey@cisco.com>
	Token:	Pasi Eronen
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (reviewed -15 for LC)

RAI		The use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 7
		draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: The proto Shepherd for this document is Dean Willis.
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Scott Brim (already reviewed for LC)

OPS		Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 7
		draft-ietf-psamp-info-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Juergen Quittek is the PROTO shepherd
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Vijay Gurbani (reviewed -10 for LC)

RAI		Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 7
		draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: The document shepherd is Roni Even.
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Ben Campbell (reviewed -05 for LC; needs re-review)

TSV		Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (BCP) - 5 of 7
		draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	Miguel Garcia (reviewed -03 for LC)

RAI		Framework for Establishing an SRTP Security Context using DTLS (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 7
		draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Last Call ends Oct 31. Dean Willis will act as the proto shepherd.
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (assigned LC due 10/31)

RTG		Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 7
		draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	David Ward
	Reviewer:	Vijay Gurbani (already reviewed for LC)

2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item
NONE
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


Area	Date
TSV		Test vectors for STUN (Informational) - 1 of 2
		draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (already reviewed for LC)

RTG		AS Number Reservation for Documentation Use (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	David Ward
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed 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

Area	Date
GEN		Considerations for Having a Successful BOF (Informational) - 1 of 2
		draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Gonzalo Camarillo (already reviewed for LC)

GEN		Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Miguel Garcia (reviewed -06 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