GenART Review Assignment for 26 Oct 2006

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-10-26).

Updated 18:2:20 EDT, October 19, 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		M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 10
		draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Bill Fenner
	Reviewer:	Miguel Garcia

RTG		RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 10
		draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Vijay Gurbani (reviewed -03 for LC)

RTG		GMPLS Based Segment Recovery (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 10
		draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Pasi Eronen (reviewed -02 for LC)

TSV		Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 10
		draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: PROTO Shepherd: David Black (black_david@emc.com) Gen-ART Reviewer: Eric Gray (Eric.Gray@marconi.com)
	Token:	Lars Eggert
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray (reviewed -06 for LC)

RTG		BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 10
		draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Bill Fenner
	Reviewer:	John Loughney

TSV		Definitions of Managed Objects for Middlebox Communication (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 10
		draft-ietf-midcom-mib-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: SEC-DIR Reviewer: Radia Perlman (Radia.Perlman@sun.com) WG Shephard Melinda Shore
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (reviewed -08 for LC)

TSV		Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 10
		draft-ietf-pmtud-method-10.txt
		Note: PROTO Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas (matt@internet2.edu)
	Token:	Lars Eggert
	Reviewer:	Harald Alvestrand

RTG		Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 10
		draft-ietf-mpls-over-l2tpv3-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC)

RAI		Enhancements to RTP Payload Formats for EVRC Family Codecs (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 10
		draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Colin Perkins is PROTO Shepherd
	Token:	Cullen Jennings
	Reviewer:	David Black (reviewed -09 for LC)

SEC		Pre-Shared Key Cipher Suites with NULL Encryption for Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Proposed Standard) - 10 of 10
		draft-ietf-tls-psk-null-02.txt
		Note: PROTO Shepherd is Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC)

2.1.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
OPS		Specification of the IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-23.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
OPS		Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1, J1, E1, DS2 and E2 Interface Types (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	David Black (reviewed -00 for LC)

APP		Encoding Instructions for the Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-legg-ldap-gser-ei-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ted Hardie
	Reviewer:	Avri Doria

2.2.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
SEC		RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-rja-ripv2-auth-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Back on the agenda to see if the latest update includes all of the points in the security considerations to clear Sam's DISCUSS position.
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins (reviewed -03 as Return - Ready)

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
SEC		Requirements for an IPsec Certificate Management Profile (Informational) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-pki4ipsec-mgmt-profile-rqts-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Russ Housley
	Reviewer:	Gonzalo Camarillo

3.1.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
OPS		Architecture for IP Flow Information Export (Informational) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Ron Bonica (reviewed -10 for 6 July/LC; Ready)

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
INT		Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 2
		Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS Networks (Historic) - 1 of 2
		draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-12.txt
		Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS (Historic)
		draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-19.txt
	Token:	Mark Townsley
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)

APP		A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-goodwin-iso-urn-00.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ted Hardie
	Reviewer:	Sharon Chisholm

3.2.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
RTG		RFC 1264 is Obsolete (Informational) - 1 of 1
		draft-fenner-obsolete-1264-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Ross Callon
	Reviewer:	John Loughney (reviewed -02 for 31 Aug)

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