Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for September 6, 2007 Telechat

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:38:39 +0200

Please find below the preliminary agenda for the September 6 IESG
telechat. If there are any comments or issues with the documents
submitted for IESG approval please let me know until COB September 5 the
latest. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

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-mip6-cn-ipsec-05.txt
    Using IPsec between Mobile and Correspondent IPv6 Nodes (Proposed
Standard) 
    - 1 of 4 
    Note: AD Sponsored submission. There is no Document Shepherd. 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
    Inter domain Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS
 
    (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions (Proposed Standard)
-
2 of 
    4 
    Token: Ross Callon
  o draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt
    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the
Mobile
Ad 
    hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 
    Token: Ross Callon
  o draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
    IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 
    Note: No shepherd -- chairs are authors 
    Token: Jari Arkko

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-sip-answermode-04.txt
    Requesting Answering Modes for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Keith is shepherd. 
    Token: Cullen Jennings

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
  o draft-salowey-tls-rfc4507bis-01.txt
    Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
Server-Side
State 
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Token: Tim Polk

2.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-duerst-archived-at-09.txt
    The Archived-At Message Header Field (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> is document
shepherd 
    Token: Chris Newman

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-dhc-pxelinux-02.txt
    Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options Used by PXELINUX 
    (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Note: NOTE: There are significant RFC Editor notes.. Document
Shepherd
is 
    Stig Venaas <[email-masked]> 
    Token: Jari Arkko

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-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-10.txt
    Bundle Protocol Specification (Experimental) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Proposed IESG Response: The IESG has not found any conflict
between 
    this document and IETF work. 
    Token: Russ Housley

3.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-03.txt
    DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Note: The ballot has been split.  Please revise DISCUSS and COMMENT
text 
    to address only this document. 
    Token: Russ Housley

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 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.

_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors