Skip to main content

IESG agenda
2024-02-29

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: February 21, 2024

* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

  o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9422 (SMTP Server
    Limits) [IANA #1358457].
    - Added 2024-02-15 (1 telechats ago)
  o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9530 (Digest 
    Fields) [IANA #1359278].
    - Added 2024-02-21 (0 telechats ago)
  o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9421 (HTTP Message 
    Signatures)[IANA #1359281].
    - Added 2024-02-21 (0 telechats ago)


* OPEN ACTION ITEMS

  o Warren Kumari and Murray Kucherawy to follow up on a bis document for 
    RFC 8126 regarding designated experts.
    - Added 2023-03-26 (22 telechats ago)
  o Andrew Alston to email the RSWG regarding document authorship/
    editorship with regards to the number of authors listed.
    - Added 2023-07-23, updated 2023-10-26 (8 telechats ago)
  o Lars Eggert and Warren Kumari to 1) draft a revision of RFC 4858, 
    2) draft a revised IESG Statement on Document Shepherds (original 
    statement October 2010), and 3) update the WG Chairs wiki to point 
    to the new IESG Statement.
    - Added 2023-08-17 (13 telechats 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

Proposed Standard
YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers
IANA review
Version Changed - Review Needed
Consensus
Yes
Proposed Standard
A YANG Data Model for In-Situ OAM
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes

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

Informational
Use of Password Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) in PKCS #12 Syntax
IANA review
IANA OK - Actions Needed
Consensus
Yes

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

(None)

3.4.2 Returning items

(None)

4. Working Group actions

4.1 WG creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

(None)

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

WG name
Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers (DULT)

4.2 WG rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

WG name
Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (MASQUE)

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

(None)

5. IAB news we can use

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1358158] renewing early allocation for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher (IANA)

6.2 [IANA #1359278] Designated experts for RFC 9530 (Digest Fields) (IANA)

6.3 [IANA #1359281] Designated experts for RFC 9421 (HTTP Message Signatures) (IANA)

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