GenART Review Assignment for 19 January 2006

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-01-19).

Updated 18:2:20 EDT, January 12, 2006


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

Group Security Policy Token v1 (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 9

draft-ietf-msec-policy-token-sec-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Russ Housley

Reviewer:

Scott Brim



APP

Sieve Email Filtering: Vacation Extension (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 9

draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: Document shepherd is Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>

Token:

Scott Hollenbeck

Reviewer:

David Black



INT

HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 9

draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-05.txt

Note: 1/12/06:  Waiting for -06 version to address LC comments.  The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>.

Token:

Margaret Wasserman

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (reviewed -05 for LC)



APP

LDAP: Internationalized String Preparation (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 9

draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ted Hardie

Reviewer:

Harald Alvestrand (already reviewed for LC)



APP

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 9

draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ted Hardie

Reviewer:

David Black (already reviewed for LC)



APP

LDAP: Schema for User Applications (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 9

draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ted Hardie

Reviewer:

Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)



INT

Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 9

draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

John Loughney



INT

PWE3 Frame Check Sequence Retention (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 9

draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

John Loughney



SEC

IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 9

draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: Proto shepherd is Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>

Token:

Russ Housley

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (already reviewed for LC)



2.1.2 Returning Item

     

Area

Date

INT

Virtual Private LAN Service (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2

draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide."

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (previously reviewed -05 for 29 Sept 05)



INT

Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2

draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp are different solutions to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and essentially "let the market decide."

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (previously reviewed -07 for 29 Sept 05)



2.2 Individual Submissions

         

2.2.1 New Item

     

Area

Date

APP

Considerations for LDAP Extensions (BCP) - 1 of 1

draft-zeilenga-ldap-ext-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Ted Hardie

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (already reviewed for LC)



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

INT

Architecture for the Use of PE-PE IPsec Tunnels in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs (Experimental) - 1 of 4

draft-ietf-l3vpn-ipsec-2547-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Harald Alvestrand



INT

Service Requirements for Layer 2 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (Informational) - 2 of 4

draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Spencer Dawkins (reviewed -05 for LC)



SEC

ECC Cipher Suites for TLS (Informational) - 3 of 4

draft-ietf-tls-ecc-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: Proto shepherd is Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>.

Token:

Russ Housley

Reviewer:

Joel Halpern



INT

DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) Options (Informational) - 4 of 4

draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>.

Token:

Margaret Wasserman

Reviewer:

Spencer Dawkins



3.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE
3.1.3 For Action

     

Area

Date

RTG

A Lexicography for the Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within The Context of the ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Architecture (Informational) - 1 of 1

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-06.txt

Note: The ITU-T wishes to refer to this document in G.8081 Amendment, to be consented in their meeting Feb 6 to Feb 17 so we should request expedited publication by February 10th.

Token:

Bill Fenner

Reviewer:

Harald Alvestrand



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 Individual 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.

Other matters may be recorded in comments to 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