From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 13 07:00:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIlix-0001PA-Kf; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:00:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIliw-0001P5-FI for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:00:30 -0500 Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIliv-0003j8-29 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:00:30 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (frogbits.attlabs.att.com [135.197.129.116]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F704147D2A for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2DC01oY066836 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:00:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k2DC01JL066835 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200603131200.k2DC01JL066835@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 515708a075ffdf0a79d1c83b601e2afd Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-03-16 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-03-16). Updated 2:2:25 EDT, March 13, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat 1.5 Review of Projects 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 Four-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 8 Resolution of FQDN Conflicts among DHCP Clients (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 8 draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-11.txt A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR) (Proposed Standard) draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt The DHCP Client FQDN Option (Proposed Standard) draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-12.txt The DHCPv6 Client FQDN Option (Proposed Standard) draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-04.txt Token: Margaret Wasserman Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, OPS Feb 23 Traceroute, and Lookup Operations (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 8 draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-09.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: IETF Last Call ends March 9th. Sofar only one minor comment has been received. Token: Bert Wijnen OPS Feb 23 Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 3 of 8 NETCONF Configuration Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 8 draft-ietf-netconf-prot-12.txt Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH) (Proposed Standard) draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt Token: Bert Wijnen Cable Device Management Information Base for Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification OPS Mar 8 Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 8 draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO-shepherding by Jean Francois: jf.mule@cablelabs.com Token: Bert Wijnen RAI RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 8 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-13.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last Call ends 3-16 / PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com / media types review: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ ietf-types/2006-February/001653.html Token: Allison Mankin SEC Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 8 draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2222bis-15.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Sam Hartman RAI MIME type registration for RTP Payload format for H.224 (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 8 draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last Call ends 3/16 / PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com / media types review: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ ietf-types/2006-February/001654.html Token: Allison Mankin OPS Mar 8 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switch Networks Version 1.0 (Draft) - 8 of 8 rfc2613.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: IETF Last Call ends on March 9th Token: Bert Wijnen 2.1.2 Returning Item Area Date Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame INT Relay Over MPLS Networks (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date The AES-CMAC-PRF-128 Algorithm for the SEC Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3 draft-songlee-aes-cmac-prf-128-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, INT ICMPv6, UDP and TCP Headers (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3 draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Please evaluate the -03 version at: http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/tmp/ draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-03.txt Token: Margaret Wasserman Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) INT Extension Field Format (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3 draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Margaret Wasserman 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 TSV A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO Shepherd: Mark Allman Token: Jon Peterson RTG A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-pce-architecture-04.txt Token: Alex Zinin 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 Area Date APP JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (Informational) - 1 of 3 draft-crockford-jsonorg-json-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Scott Hollenbeck Experimental Procedure for Long Term GEN Suspensions from Mailing Lists (Experimental) - 2 of 3 draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last call ends March 15 Token: Brian Carpenter OPS Mar 8 Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG (Informational) - 3 of 3 draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: IETF Last Call ends on March 17th. Some IETF Last Call comments (mainly editorial) have been received. I'd like to see IESG comments as well, so we can do one more revision during IETF week and then hopefully be done with this one. Token: Bert Wijnen 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual 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 , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for 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. Other matters may be recorded in comments to 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 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 Area Date SEC Feb 21 Security Issues in Network Event Logging (syslog) - 1 of 1 Token: Sam 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 16 02:53:14 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJnIF-0005aa-Rc; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:53:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJnIE-0005WC-Oe for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:53:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJnID-00007n-GH for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:53:10 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FJnID-000NIm-1W for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:53:09 +0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:52:42 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1067653253.20060315235242@psg.com> To: rtg-dir@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Subject: Before leaving: making rtg-dir work again X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Guys, One thing I always wanted to do before I finish my AD terms was to make the rtg-dir actually work. They way I see it, rtg-dir has two main functions: 1. help in document review for RTG docs and those going through the IESG 2. advise ADs on general direction, technical issues, etc. We had (1) work reasonably well while Bill and I were assigning documents explicitly for a review. We then wanted to make it more automated by asking WG chairs to send review requests to rtg-dir. I don't think this ever happened. Is it still a good idea? I think so, but would appreciate comments. We had (2) work sometimes as well. This is a harder one to control, and I suspect it finally comes down to rtg-dir guys telling ADs they can count on them, and ADs not forgetting to consult the rtg-dir. Any other ideas? Should we think about rtg-dir folks shepherd BOFs? Anything else? Let's start the discussion and meet in Dallas to talk more. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 16 10:09:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJu6i-00043h-Ly; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:09:44 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJu6g-00043c-Ud for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:09:43 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJu6f-0004ia-IB for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:09:42 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2GF9eMJ031756; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:09:40 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.4/8.12.11/Submit) id k2GF9ePa031755; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:09:40 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:09:40 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Alex Zinin Message-ID: <20060316150940.GA31706@1-4-5.net> References: <1067653253.20060315235242@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067653253.20060315235242@psg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7 X-philosophy: "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode IV. X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Before leaving: making rtg-dir work again X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, in any event, you'll be sorely missed. Thanks for the many years of service. Dave On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:52:42PM -0800, Alex Zinin wrote: > Guys, >=20 > One thing I always wanted to do before I finish my AD terms was to make > the rtg-dir actually work. >=20 > They way I see it, rtg-dir has two main functions: >=20 > 1. help in document review for RTG docs and those going through the IE= SG > 2. advise ADs on general direction, technical issues, etc. >=20 > We had (1) work reasonably well while Bill and I were assigning documents > explicitly for a review. We then wanted to make it more automated by > asking WG chairs to send review requests to rtg-dir. I don't think this > ever happened. Is it still a good idea? I think so, but would appreciate > comments. >=20 > We had (2) work sometimes as well. This is a harder one to control, and I > suspect it finally comes down to rtg-dir guys telling ADs they can count > on them, and ADs not forgetting to consult the rtg-dir. Any other ideas? >=20 > Should we think about rtg-dir folks shepherd BOFs? > Anything else? >=20 > Let's start the discussion and meet in Dallas to talk more. >=20 > --=20 > Alex > http://www.psg.com/~zinin >=20 --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEGX+0ORgD1qCZ2KcRApASAJ9v4BYEHyMTCWt2HjgxfVwD8Oh+UgCeNdSg oOh7l7idoW5iTVuFkMFT7vs= =2x++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY-- From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 27 07:00:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNqOe-0001FJ-Jm; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:00:32 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNqOd-0001EI-GG for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:00:31 -0500 Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNqOd-0002is-6k for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:00:31 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (frogbits.attlabs.att.com [135.197.129.116]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF3D866B for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2RC01NQ062625 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:00:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k2RC016o062624 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200603271200.k2RC016o062624@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7 Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-03-30 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-03-30). Updated 2:2:19 EDT, March 27, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat 1.5 Review of Projects 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 SEC The Plain SASL Mechanism (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-sasl-plain-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Sam Hartman Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure SEC Subject Identification Method (SIM) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-pkix-sim-07.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley 2.1.2 Returning Item NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date The Use of Galois Message Authentication Code SEC (GMAC) in IPsec ESP and AH (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 draft-mcgrew-aes-gmac-esp-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: The T11 FC-SP Working Group needs RFC number by Friday, May 19th. Token: Russ Housley Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) APP and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie 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 RTG A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-pce-architecture-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Alex Zinin OPS Multicast Source Discovery protocol MIB (Experimental) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-mib-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Dan Romascanu 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 Area Date GEN Media Type Registrations for Downloadable Sounds for MIDI (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-westerlund-mime-dls-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual 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 , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for 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. Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item Area Date OPS Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-zorn-radius-port-type-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Dan Romascanu 3.3.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3.3 For Action Area Date GEN Registration and Administration Guideline for Chinese Domain Names (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-06.txt Note: RFC Editor submission for RFC 3932 processing Token: Brian Carpenter 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review Area Date TSV Mar 24 FEC over Transport Framework (fecframe) - 1 of 1 Token: Magnus 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 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 30 12:35:35 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP13X-0004Aq-JD; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:35:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLh5Z-0000vs-0i for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:39:57 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLh5X-000894-Qc for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:39:56 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2006 08:39:56 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.03,114,1141621200"; d="scan'208"; a="84602953:sNHT28238624" Received: from [204.96.115.72] (rtp-vpn2-424.cisco.com [10.82.241.168]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2LDdsVU018661; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:39:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4420022A.9070208@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:39:54 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin References: <1067653253.20060315235242@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <1067653253.20060315235242@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:35:33 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Before leaving: making rtg-dir work again X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org > 1. help in document review for RTG docs and those going through the IESG > 2. advise ADs on general direction, technical issues, etc. > > We had (1) work reasonably well while Bill and I were assigning documents > explicitly for a review. We then wanted to make it more automated by > asking WG chairs to send review requests to rtg-dir. I don't think this > ever happened. Is it still a good idea? I think so, but would appreciate > comments. Yes, definitely. I think most of us would like to help, but we're never certain where the right place to help actually is. > We had (2) work sometimes as well. This is a harder one to control, and I > suspect it finally comes down to rtg-dir guys telling ADs they can count > on them, and ADs not forgetting to consult the rtg-dir. Any other ideas? Perhaps some sort of "automated working group discussion round?" I don't know, maybe rather than waiting for a draft to become a draft, ask someone to review newly acquired working group items and recharterings as they come in, rather than just drafts past last call in the WG? The charters might actually be more important, since they can show where and how the work the WG's are engaged in can mesh. :-) Russ