GenART Review Assignment for 13 April 2006

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-04-13).

Updated 18:2:9 EDT, April 6, 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

OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3

draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: A revision -10 is expected shortly to update some minor issues (the most major is the use of Integer32 vs. Unsigned32 noted in the I-D Tracker's comment log)

Token:

Bill Fenner

Reviewer:

Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC)



RAI

RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3

draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org

Token:

Cullen Jennings

Reviewer:

Michael Patton



SEC

Update to DirectoryString Processing in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3

draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-02.txt

Token:

Sam Hartman

Reviewer:

David Black (LC ends 12 April 2006)



2.1.2 Returning Item

     

Area

Date

INT

BGP-MPLS IP VPN extension for IPv6 VPN (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2

draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

Spencer Dawkins (Mary re-reviewed this version for Spencer for 29 Sept 2005)



INT

Constrained VPN Route Distribution (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2

draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]

Note: Remaining discuss before the new IESG was inaugerated was held by Alex for implementation reports (which have since been submitted). Ross, as Alex's successor, has entered a "Yes" position.

Token:

Mark Townsley

Reviewer:

John Loughney (reviewed for 29 Sept 2005)



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
      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
      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

     

Area

Date

INT

Registration and Administration Guideline for Chinese Domain Names (Informational) - 1 of 1

draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-06.txt

Note: RFC Editor submission for RFC 3932 processing

Token:

Mark Townsley