Gen-ART Review Assignments for 24 April 2008

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-04-24).



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
      AreaDate
TSV NFS Direct Data Placement (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4
draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (spencer.shepler@sun.com)
Token: Lars Eggert
   Reviewer:Francis Dupont (reviewed -07 for LC)
     
TSV Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 4
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (spencer.shepler@sun.com)
Token: Lars Eggert
   Reviewer:Eric Gray (reviewed -07 for LC)
     
INT Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6) (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4
draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document shepherd is Vijay Devarapalli
Token: Jari Arkko
   Reviewer:Joel Halpern (assigned LC ending 22 April)
     
TSV Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4
draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd: Gorry Fairhurst (gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk) - DCCP WG Chair
  Token: Lars Eggert
  Reviewer: Brian Carpenter (reviewed -05 for LC)
   
2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item
      AreaDate
APPA Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes (BCP) - 1 of 2
draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Harald Alvestrand is document shepherd
Token: Chris Newman
  Reviewer:Joel Halpern (already reviewed)
    
APPSieve Email Filtering: Environment Extension (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
draft-freed-sieve-environment-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Alexey Melnikov is document shepherd
  Token: Chris Newman
  Reviewer: Brian Carpenter (reviewed -04 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
      AreaDate
RTGPolicy-Enabled Path Computation Framework (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
  Token: Ross Callon
  Reviewer: Miguel Garcia
     
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
      AreaDate
INTEAP Tunneled TLS Authentication Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0) (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-funk-eap-ttls-v0-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Laksminath Dondeti is the Document Shepherd
  Token: Jari Arkko
  Reviewer: Joel Halpern (already reviewed)
   
3.2.2 Returning Item
      NONE

3.3 Independent 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.

The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
document shepherd.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
          3.3.1 New Item
      NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
      NONE

4. Working Group Actions

         

4.1 WG Creation

          4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
         
AreaDate
OPSApr 3NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) - 1 of 1
Token:Dan
         

4.2 WG Rechartering

          4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
                    NONE
          4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
                    NONE

5. IAB News We Can Use

6. Management Issues

7. Working Group News