GenART Review Assignment for 13 October 2005

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2005-10-13).

Updated 18:22:0 EDT, October 6, 2005

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

Definitions of Managed Objects for iFCP (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 5

draft-ietf-ips-ifcp-mib-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: This

Token:

Allison Mankin

Reviewer:

David Black (reviewed -06 for LC)



TSV

A Framework for Application Interaction in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (BCP) - 2 of 5

draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: PROTO shepherd: Rohan Mahy, rohan@ekabal.com
Last Call ends 12 October.  LC review encouraged, even though document is
currently set for IESG agenda

Token:

Allison Mankin

Reviewer:

Avri Doria



INT

IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) (BCP) - 3 of 5

draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Joel Halpern



INT

Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5

draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: Olaf Kolkman is the PROTO shepherd for this document. 

Token:

Margaret Wasserman

Reviewer:

John Loughney



APP

Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 5 of 5

Tags for Identifying Languages (BCP) - 5 of 5

draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.txt

Note: Document shepherd is Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>

Initial Language Subtag Registry (Informational)

draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05.txt

Note: Document shepherd is Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>

Token:

Scott Hollenbeck

Reviewer:

Elwyn Davies (reviewed -12 and -04 for LC)



2.1.2 Returning Item

     

Area

Date

TSV

RTP Retransmission Payload Format (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2

draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-12.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: proto shepherd: colin perkins (csp@csperkins.org)
Need to check on Discusses - DLNA requests approval by 12 Oct.  The
rev was given to the ADs (not published) Aug 22, then submitted Sep 15
with another request for re-review.  (Before Aug: some discussion of the issues).

Token:

Allison Mankin

Reviewer:

Mary Barnes (Suzanne Woolf reviewed -11)



RTG

Source-Specific Multicast for IP (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2

draft-ietf-ssm-arch-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Alex Zinin

Reviewer:

Spencer Dawkins (reviewed -06 in Oct 2004)



2.2 Individual Submissions

         

2.2.1 New Item
      NONE
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

TSV

Three-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 3

Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling (Informational) - 1 of 3

draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-10.txt

Note: PROTO Shepherd: Maureen Stillman

Comparison of Protocols for Reliable Server Pooling (Informational)

draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-10.txt

Note: PROTO Shepherd: Maureen Stillman

Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements for Security in response to Threats (Informational)

draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-05.txt

Note: PROTO Shepherd: Maureen Stillman

Token:

Jon Peterson

Reviewer:

Harald Alvestrand (already reviewed)



TSV

Conferencing Scenarios (Informational) - 2 of 3

draft-ietf-xcon-conference-scenarios-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Allison Mankin

Reviewer:

Lakshminath Dondeti



TSV

Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Registration of the Message Media Feature Tag (Informational) - 3 of 3

draft-ietf-sipping-message-tag-00.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Allison Mankin

Reviewer:

Scott Brim



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
      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