IESG agenda
2024-12-05
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
OUTSTANDING TASKS
Last updated: November 26, 2024
* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED
o Zahed Sarker to find designated experts for RFC 9653 (Zero
Checksum for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol) [IANA #1378063].
- Added 2024-09-30 (4 telechats ago)
o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9559 (Matroska
Media Container Format Specification) [IANA #1385324].
- Added 2024-10-18 (2 telechats ago)
o Gunter Van de Velde to find designated experts for RFC 9666 (Area
Proxy for IS-IS) [IANA #1394691].
- Added 2024-11-12 (1 telechat ago)
o Erik Kline to find designated experts for draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update
('ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7)[IANA #1402348].
- Added 2024-11-26 (0 telechats ago)
* OPEN ACTION ITEMS
o Murray Kucherawy and Éric Vyncke to create a draft IESG statement
about using 2119 language.
- Added 2024-06-28 (9 telechats ago)
o Roman Danyliw to work on adding a checkbox to the meeting
registration system asking people to identify they are willing to
serve as WG chair.
- Added 2024-10-24 (1 telechat ago)
o Roman Danyliw to prepare status changes or another way forward
for the handful of obsoleted documents Pete Resnick emailed the
IESG about on 2 Nov 2024.
- Added 2024-11-03 (1 telechat ago)
o Roman Danyliw to take a look at Datatracker documentation of
document states and update as needed.
- Added 2024-11-03 (1 telechat ago)
o Secretariat to update non-wg list guidelines to include a link to
IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting and detail on list moderation.
- Added 2024-11-03 (1 telechat ago)
o IESG to decide whether we are going to collectively agree to opt in
to the RPC auth 48 Github experiment if authors are part of the
github experiment.
- Added 2024-11-03 (1 telechat ago)
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
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
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
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:
- The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work;
- The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing;
- 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;
- 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
- 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
(None)
3.4.2 Returning items
(None)
4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review
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
(None)