Gen-ART Review Assignments for 7 February 2007

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-02-07).
 

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  
  INT   MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 6
      draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
      Note: Document waiting on mip6-hiopt resolutions before it can complete succesful WGLC in DHC WG
    Token: Jari Arkko
    Reviewer: Eric Gray (assigned LC due on 4  Feb)
       
  INT   Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 6
      draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
      Note: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman
    Token: Jari Arkko
    Reviewer: Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC)
       
  INT   DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 6
      draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt [Open Web Ballot]
      Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil
    Token: Jari Arkko
    Reviewer: Francis Dupont (already reviewed for LC)
       
  INT   Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 6
      draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
      Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann
    Token: Jari Arkko
    Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo (assigned LC due 4 Feb)
       
  INT   Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 6
      draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
    Token: Mark Townsley
    Reviewer: Francis Dupont (reviewed -06 for LC)
       
  SEC   EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 6
      draft-ietf-hokey-erx-08.txt [Open Web Ballot]
    Token: Tim Polk
    Reviewer: Pasi Eronen (assigned LC due on 7 Feb)
       

2.1.2 Returning Item
      NONE
 

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  
  SEC   Handover Key Management and Re-authentication Problem Statement (Informational) - 1 of 3
      draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt [Open Web Ballot]
    Token: Tim Polk
    Reviewer: Miguel Garcia (assigned LC due on 7 Feb)
       
  OPS   Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules (Informational) - 2 of 3
      draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
    Token: Ron Bonica
    Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
       
  OPS   Requirements for address selection mechanisms (Informational) - 3 of 3
      draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt
    Token: Ron Bonica
    Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
       

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 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