Gen-ART Review Assignments for 10 April 2008

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2008-04-10).

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		Proxy Mobile IPv6 (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Document Shepherd is Jonne Soininen
	Token:	Jari Arkko
	Reviewer:	Elwyn Davies (already reviewed)

2.1.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
INT		Mobile IPv4 Traversal Across IPsec-based VPN Gateways (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Document Shepherd is Henrik Levkowetz
	Token:	Jari Arkko
	Reviewer:	Vijay Gurbani (already reviewed)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
SEC		How to Share Transaction Fraud (Thraud) Report Data (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
		draft-mraihi-inch-thraud-05.txt
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Ben Campbelll (already reviewed)

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
RAI		ENUM Implementation Issues and Experiences (Informational) - 1 of 2
		draft-ietf-enum-experiences-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	Brian Carpenter (reviewed -08 for LC)

RAI		Requirements from SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Session Border Control Deployments (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	David Black (reviewed -04 for LC)

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