GenART Review Assignment for 22 June 2006

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-06-22).

Updated 22:2:18 EDT, June 15, 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
RTG		Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3
		draft-ietf-idr-restart-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Bill Fenner
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC)

RAI		The ENUM Dip Indicator parameter for the "tel" URI (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3
		draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Proto Shepherd: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Sharon Chisholm (already reviewed for LC)

RAI		IANA Registration for an Enumservice Containing PSTN Signaling Information (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3
		draft-ietf-enum-pstn-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: PROTO Sherpherd: Patrik Faltstrom (paf@cisco.com)
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	David Black

2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE
2.1.3 For Action

Area	Date
RTG		OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Bill Fenner
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (reviewed -10 for 13 April 2006)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
INT		IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) (BCP) - 1 of 4
		draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Should end IETF LC 06/21
	Token:	Mark Townsley
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray (already reviewed for LC and approved proposed changes)

SEC		IKE and IKEv2 Authentication Using ECDSA (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4
		draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-auth-ecdsa-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Elwyn Davies (already reviewed for LC on 6 March 2006)

GEN		Atom Threading Extensions (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4
		draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Lisa Dusseault
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (reviewed -10 for LC)

APP		SMTP Submission Service Extension for Future Message Release (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4
		draft-vaudreuil-futuredelivery-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Last Call ends on June 22, 2006
	Token:	Ted Hardie
	Reviewer:	Francis Dupont (already reviewed for LC)

2.2.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
APP		Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-dusseault-caldav-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ted Hardie
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed for 08 June 2006)

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
NONE
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
RAI		ISDN subaddress encoding type for tel URI (Informational) - 1 of 1
		draft-munakata-iptel-isub-type-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Harald Alvestrand (reviewed -01 for LC)

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