IESG agenda
2024-08-08
1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call
1.2 Bash the agenda
1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats
1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat
OUTSTANDING TASKS
Last updated: July 11, 2024
* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED
o Éric Vyncke to find designated experts for RFC 9575 (DRIP Entity
Tag (DET) Authentication Formats and Protocols for Broadcast
Remote Identification (RID)) [IANA #1367328]
- Added 2024-06-26 (1 telechat ago)
o Éric Vyncke to find designated experts for RFC 9606 (DNS Resolver
Information") [IANA #1367528].
- Added 2024-07-02 (1 telechat ago)
* OPEN ACTION ITEMS
o Roman Danyliw and Warren Kumari to 1) draft a revision of RFC 4858,
2) draft a revised IESG Statement on Document Shepherds (original
statement October 2010), and 3) update the WG Chairs wiki to point
to the new IESG Statement.
- Added 2023-08-17 (23 telechats ago)
o Paul Wouters to write a proposal for handling IANA review
mailing lists.
- Added 2024-04-18 (7 telechats ago)
o All IESG to review Non-WG List Review spreadsheet and note
which lists may be ready for closure and any needed AD Actions.
- Added 2024-04-26 (6 telechats ago)
o Orie Steele, Francesca Palombini, Murray Kucherawy, Mahesh Jethanandani,
Warren Kumari to write draft of IESG statement addressing issue of
credit in documents & the importance of capturing and addressing all
comments as a necessary part of the consensus process, mostly
pointing at existing advice.
- Added 2024-06-28 (1 telechat ago)
o Murray Kucherawy and Éric Vyncke to create a draft IESG statement
about using 2119 language.
- Added 2024-06-28 (1 telechat ago)
o Murray Kucherawy to draft an IESG statement on use of Internet-Drafts
to meet "specification required" in IANA registries.
- Added 2024-06-28 (1 telechat ago)
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 items
2.1.2 Returning items
(None)
2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items
(None)
2.2.2 Returning items
(None)
2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items
(None)
2.3.2 Returning items
(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 items
3.1.2 Returning items
(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 items
3.2.2 Returning items
(None)
3.3 Status changes
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Are the proposed changes to document status appropriate? Have all requirements for such a change been met? If not, what changes to the proposal would make it appropriate?"
3.3.1 New items
(None)
3.3.2 Returning items
(None)
3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
The IESG will use RFC 5742 responses:
- The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work;
- The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing;
- The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time;
- The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; or
- The IESG has concluded 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 conflict-review document, and the document shepherd may supply text for an IESG Note in that document. The Area Director ballot positions indicate consensus with the response proposed by the document shepherd and agreement that the IESG should request inclusion of the IESG Note.
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
3.4.1 New items
(None)
3.4.2 Returning items
(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)