GenART Review Assignment for 28 Sept 2006

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-09-28).

Updated 18:2:21 EDT, September 21, 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
TSV		GIST: General Internet Signaling Transport (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 5
		draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: WG Shepherd: John Loughney (john.loughney@nokia.com)
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund

OPS		Operation of Anycast Services (BCP) - 2 of 5
		draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: PROTO Shepherd: Geoff Huston
	Token:	David Kessens
	Reviewer:	Sharon Chisholm (already reviewed for LC)

TSV		Aggregation of RSVP Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 5
		draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Gen-ART Reviewer: Sharon Chisholm (schishol@nortel.com)
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	Sharon Chisholm (reviewed -04 for LC: Ready)

RAI		RTP Payload Format and File Storage Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5
		draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Colin Perkins is PROTO Shepherd
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	Harald Alvestrand

SEC	Oct 31	Secure Shell Public-Key Subsystem (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 5
		draft-ietf-secsh-publickey-subsystem-07.txt
		Note: Requested comments be fixed by October 31
	Token:	Sam Hartman
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)

2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
SEC		OCSP Extensions to IKEv2 (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-myers-ikev2-ocsp-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Tom Taylor (reviewed -03 for LC: Almost Ready)

OPS		Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over IEEE 802 Networks (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-schoenw-snmp-ether-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: version 02 was submitted by the document editor on 9/21 and should be used in the IESG discussion
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	David Black

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		Framework and Requirements for Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks (Informational) - 1 of 3
		draft-ietf-l1vpn-framework-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	John Loughney

OPS		Operational Security Current Practices (Informational) - 2 of 3
		draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Ross Callon is the proto shepherd
	Token:	David Kessens
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray

INT		Softwire Problem Statement (Informational) - 3 of 3
		draft-ietf-softwire-problem-statement-02.txt
		Note: Exiting Last Call on 9/28
	Token:	Mark Townsley
	Reviewer:	Gonzalo Camarillo

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
OPS		Administration of the IANA Special Purpose Address Block (Informational) - 1 of 2
		draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Tom Taylor (already reviewed for LC)

SEC		OMA BCAST MIKEY General Extension Payload Specification (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-dondeti-msec-mikey-genext-oma-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Robert Sparks (already reviewed for 9/14 and 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