Subject: IESG agenda for 2009-01-15 telechat.

From: [email-masked] (Bill Fenner)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:05 -0800 (PST)

IESG Agenda

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next
Telechat (2009-01-15).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Administrivia

    1.1 Roll Call
    1.2 Bash the Agenda
    1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
    1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat

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

                          Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
              RTG         Computation Element Communication Protocol
                          (PCEP) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3
                          draft-ietf-pce-of-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
                   Token: Ross Callon
                          Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path
              RTG         Computation Element Communication Protocol
                          (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3
                          draft-ietf-pce-dste-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
                   Token: Ross Callon
              APP         A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve
                          Scripts (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3
                          draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-06.txt [Open Web
                          Ballot]
                   Token: Lisa Dusseault

           2.1.2 Returning Item
                 NONE

      2.2 Individual Submissions

               2.2.1 New Item

                    Area  Date

                    GEN         Vouch By Reference (Proposed Standard)
                                - 1 of 1
                                draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-05.txt [Open Web
                                Ballot]
                         Token: Russ Housley

               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

                  RTG         MANET Extension of OSPF using CDS
                              Flooding (Experimental) - 1 of 3
                              draft-ietf-ospf-manet-mdr-04.txt [Open
                              Web Ballot]
                       Token: David Ward
                  RTG         OSPF MPR Extension for Ad Hoc Networks
                              (Experimental) - 2 of 3
                              draft-ietf-ospf-manet-mpr-03.txt [Open
                              Web Ballot]
                       Token: David Ward
                  RTG         Extensions to OSPF to Support Mobile Ad
                              Hoc Networking (Experimental) - 3 of 3
                              draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-01.txt [Open Web
                              Ballot]
                       Token: David Ward

              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

4. Working Group Actions

          4.1 WG Creation

                    4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
                                        NONE
                    4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
                                        NONE
          4.2 WG Rechartering

                    4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                                        NONE
                    4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
                                        NONE

5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

6.1 IESG Statement regarding chartered work overcome by events before
IESG consideration (Ron Bonica)
6.2 Draft Statement on BCP Status for Examples (Dan Romascanu)

7. Working Group News