Gen-Art Review Assignments for 05 April 2007

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2007-04-05).

Updated 18:2:25 EDT, March 29, 2007


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
SECFeb 24 OpenPGP Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6
draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-19.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Sam Hartman
   Reviewer: Miguel Garcia (already reviewed for LC)
     
RTG Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute sub-TLV (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6
draft-ietf-isis-link-attr-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Ross Callon
   Reviewer:David Black (already reviewed for LC)
     
SEC Server-based Certificate Validation Protocol (SCVP) (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6
draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-31.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Sam Hartman
   Reviewer:Spencer Dawkins (LC due on 3 April 2007)
     
INT Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6
draft-ietf-eap-keying-18.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Jari Arkko
   Reviewer:Gonzalo Camarillo (already reviewed for LC)
     
APP WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6
draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Chris Newman
   Reviewer:Lucy Lynch
     
INT AII Types for Aggregation (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6
draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02.txt
  Token: Mark Townsley
  Reviewer: Pasi Eronen (already reviewed for LC)
   
2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE

2.2 Individual Submissions

          2.2.1 New Item
      AreaDate
GENPOP3 SASL Authentication Mechanism (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3
draft-siemborski-rfc1734bis-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Lisa Dusseault
  Reviewer:David Black (reviewed -10 for LC)
    
GENCommon Local Transmit and Receive Ports (Symmetric RTP) (BCP) - 2 of 3
draft-wing-behave-symmetric-rtprtcp-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Picked up from RFC-editor independent submission to be a AD-sponsored BCP. Was earlier through an RFC 3932 review, so please re-review.
Token: Magnus Westerlund
  Reviewer:Robert Sparks (reviewed -01 for LC)
    
SECSupport for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3
draft-bagnulo-multiple-hash-cga-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document shepherd: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
  Token: Russ Housley
  Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo (already reviewed for LC)
   
2.2.2 Returning Item
      AreaDate
GENFeb 14Handling Normative References to Standards Track Documents (BCP) - 1 of 1
draft-klensin-norm-ref-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Target and scope changed from process experiment to BCP
  Token: Russ Housley
  Reviewer: Tom Taylor (reviewed -02 for LC/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
      AreaDate
TSV Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks (Informational) - 1 of 3
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-antispoof-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: Document Shepherd: Ted Faber (faber@isi.edu)
Token: Lars Eggert
   Reviewer:Suresh Krishnan (LC due 3 April 2007)
     
INT Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks (Informational) - 2 of 3
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Note: PROTO Shepherd is Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Token: Jari Arkko
   Reviewer:Gonzalo Camarillo (already reviewed for LC)
     
INT TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges (Informational) - 3 of 3
draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt
  Token: Mark Townsley
  Reviewer: Robert Sparks (LC due 30 March 2007)
   
3.1.2 Returning Item
      AreaDate
INT Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments (Informational) - 1 of 2
draft-ietf-dna-link-information-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]
Token: Jari Arkko
   Reviewer:Gonzalo Camarillo (reviewed -05 for LC)
     
INT Five-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 2 of 2
Host Identity Protocol (Experimental) - 2 of 2
draft-ietf-hip-base-07.txt
   Reviewer: Eric Gray (reviewed -06 for LC)
    Note: somehow David Black also reviewed -06 for LC (later), so the past two reviews are  concatenated under the IETF-LC link
     
Using ESP transport format with HIP (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-esp-05.txt
   Reviewer: David Black (reviewed -04 for LC)
     
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-registration-02.txt
   Reviewer: Sharon Chisholm (already reviewed for LC)
     
End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt
   Reviewer: Francis Dupont
     
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension (Experimental)
draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05.txt
  Token: Mark Townsley
  Reviewer: Scott Brim (already reviewed for LC)
   

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
GENCableLabs - IETF Standardization Collaboration (Informational) - 1 of 1
draft-mule-ietf-cablelabs-collaboration-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
  Token: Jari Arkko
  Reviewer: Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)
   
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.

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