IESG agenda: 2019-08-22

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll call

1.2 Bash the agenda

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

            (Error reading /a/www/www6/iesg/internal/task.txt)
          

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 items

IETF stream
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls
Proposed Standard
OAuth 2.0 Mutual TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens
Token
Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc
Proposed Standard
Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) and fragmentation for LPWAN, application to UDP/IPv6
Token
Suresh Krishnan (INT area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Proposed Standard
YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol
Token
Alvaro Retana (RTG area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
Proposed Standard
Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types
Token
Deborah Brungard (RTG area)
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk
Proposed Standard
Using Pre-Shared Key (PSK) in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Token
Roman Danyliw (SEC area)
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements
Best Current Practice
Enhanced Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Filtering
Token
Warren Kumari (OPS area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

2.1.2 Returning items

(None)

2.2 Individual submissions

2.2.1 New items

(None)

2.2.2 Returning items

(None)

2.3 Status changes

2.3.1 New items

(None)

2.3.2 Returning items

(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 items

IETF stream
draft-ietf-tls-grease
Informational
Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility
Token
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC area)
IANA review
IANA - Not OK
Consensus
Yes
Reviews

IETF stream
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis
Informational
The IETF-ISOC Relationship
Token
Alissa Cooper (GEN area)
IANA review
IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Consensus
Unknown
Reviews

3.1.2 Returning items

(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 items

(None)

3.2.2 Returning items

(None)

3.3 Status changes

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Are the proposed changes to document status appropriate? Have all requirements for such a change been met? If not, what changes to the proposal would make it appropriate?"

3.3.1 New items

(None)

3.3.2 Returning items

(None)

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents

The IESG will use RFC 5742 responses:

  1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work;
  2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing;
  3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time;
  4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; or
  5. The IESG has concluded 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 conflict-review document, and the document shepherd may supply text for an IESG Note in that document. The Area Director ballot positions indicate consensus with the response proposed by the document shepherd and agreement that the IESG should request inclusion of the IESG Note.

Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.4.1 New items

Conflict review
conflict-review-lewis-domain-names
IETF conflict review for draft-lewis-domain-names
ISE Informational
draft-lewis-domain-names
RFC Origins of Domain Names
Token
Warren Kumari

3.4.2 Returning items

(None)

3.4.3 For action

Conflict review
conflict-review-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13
IETF conflict review for draft-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13
ISE Informational
draft-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13
ECC Brainpool Curves for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Version 1.3
Token
Benjamin Kaduk

4. Working Group actions

4.1 WG creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

(None)

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

(None)

4.2 WG rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

(None)

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

WG name
Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor)
Charter
charter-ietf-cbor-(01-05)
Area
ART (Alexey Melnikov)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)