wiki:InformalAgenda

Version 418 (modified by alexey.melnikov@…, 12 years ago) (diff)

--

Informal Telechat 2011-03-10

Web Ex URL: https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=149799117&UID=0&PW=NNDJhZTUxY2Yw&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D

Add the Informal Telechats to your calendar: https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=149799117&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=LguHn0dINPtO/RsTOLhmjX0-sxSjzdpMBWdJFLt0bSw=&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll Call

1.2 Bash the Agenda

2. Document Discussions

2.1 draft-larmouth-oid-iri (Alexey)

This URI scheme was registered as provisional. The draft hasn't been updated for more than a year. Should I complain to ITU-T?

2.2 draft-bryan-metalinkhttp (Alexey)

Lars, can you check the latest version if your DISCUSS was addressed. If it wasn't, can you please update your DISCUSS to make it clearer what is left to be addressed.

2.3 draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports (Alexey)

All DISCUSSes on -10 were cleared.

Lars/David: I've asked TSVWG chairs to authorize a TSVWG replacement for draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use, but haven't heard anything back yet.

Q1: What is TSVWG process for accepting new drafts?
Q2: Should I insist of this replacement being done? Joe Touch has agreed to that. I think it would pacify some reviewers who wanted this to be under a WG control.

3. Management Issues

3.1. Errata 2661 (Sean)

I'm curious what to do about errata 2661:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2661

This errata was generated as a result of progressing another IPSECME WG document and there is support for this change. But, I'd like to know whether we should right this kind of thing down. Robert has discouraged people from doing this, but it's not clear that the change had community support.

Should I verify this errata?

3.2. Tracking of MIME type registrations from other SDOs in IESG trac (Alexey)

Pete/Peter, I've made a proposal that IESG process for reviewing MIME type registrations submitted directly by other SDOs should be updated to log major stages in IESG's trac. E.g. "registration received by IESG, but the registration request was rejected due to incomplete registration template", "ietf-type@… review completed", etc. Any reason not to do that (or a suggestion for better process)?

3.3. Pro-active mailing list management (Alexey)

I have one WG which generates so much volume that I am thinking about introducing full moderation (i.e. *all* posts are to be moderated).

In relationship to this:

1) Is this a good idea?

2) If this is an Ok idea, can mailman do that?

3.4. Progressing RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and RFC 5953 to Proposed Standard (Sean)

An implementation report has been compiled for RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and RFC 5953:

draft-schoenw-isms-interoperability-report-00.txt

Do I just send a note to the secretariat to add this to the implementation report page and issue a last call pointing to it?


Everything below this line is instructions, not part of the agenda itself

Editing Instructions

If the telechat was already held, please update the date (on the first line), and remove old content from Sections 2 and 3.

When adding a document to Section 2, use the following Wiki markup:

=== draft-ietf-foo-bar ===

Added by John Doe: I'd like to talk about Jane's discuss and see what 
we could do about it.

When adding a management issue to Section 3, use the following Wiki markup:

=== 3.1 Talk about the Weather ===

A sunny day, today!

Do not use any other Wiki markup or features on this page (above the line) -- this page will be parsed by the AD Dashboard tool in the future.

Note that this page is public, and all the old versions are available, too.