Subject: [dns-dir] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for January 8, 2009 Telechat

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:20:48 +0100

Please find below the preliminary agenda of the 1/8 IESG telechat.
Please send me comments or questions about the relevant documents until
Wednesday 1/7 COB. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
IESG Secretary
S

2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Item
  o draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-05.txt
    Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS (Proposed Standard) - 1
of
3 
    Token: Ross Callon
  o draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05.txt
    A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies 
    (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3 
    Token: Cullen Jennings
  o draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-03.txt
    Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3 
    Token: David Ward

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt
    Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
Message 
    Specification (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 
    Token: Tim Polk
  o draft-ietf-smime-3850bis-08.txt
    Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 
    Certificate Handling (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 
    Token: Tim Polk

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06.txt
    IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream
Submissions 
    (BCP) - 1 of 1 
    Note: Diff: http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/rfc3932bisdiff.html 
    Token: Jari Arkko

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
  o draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02.txt
    DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) 
    (Informational) - 1 of 2 
    Token: Tim Polk
  o draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01.txt
    Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement (Informational) - 2
of
2 
    Token: Lars Eggert

3.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06.txt
    The RPF Vector TLV (Informational) - 1 of 1 
    Token: David Ward

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
  o draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt
    Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies 
    (Informational) - 1 of 3 
    Token: Ross Callon
  o draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04.txt
    VoIP Configuration Server Address Option (Informational) - 2 of 3 
    Token: Jari Arkko
  o draft-korhonen-mip4-service-07.txt
    Service Selection for Mobile IPv4 (Informational) - 3 of 3 
    Token: Jari Arkko

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Independent 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
	<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
	that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
	not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
	document violates the IETF procedures for <X> 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.

	The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in
	the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
	Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
	indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
	document shepherd.

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

3.3.1 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
  o Message Organization (morg) - 1 of 1
    Token: Chris Newman
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
  o Network Configuration (netconf) - 1 of 2
    Token: Dan Romascanu
  o IP Performance Metrics (ippm) - 2 of 2
    Token: Lars Eggert

_______________________________________________
dns-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:26:14 +0100

> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:00 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: IETF DNS Directorate; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for 
> January 8, 2009 Telechat
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Is it possible to send us the proposed charter text for 
> netconf and ippm?  I don't have any particular concerns about 
> rechartering these groups, but I would be willing to look 
> over the text.
> 
> Margaret
> 

Here you go: 

--------------

Message ORGanization (morg)
------------------------------------------
Last Modified: 2008-12-11

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chair(s):
Randall Gellens
(co-chair TBD)

Applications Area Directors:
Chris Newman
Lisa Dusseault

Application Area Advisor:
Chris Newman

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/morg/current/maillist.html

Description:

The IETF Message Organization extensions Working Group will work on IMAP
extensions that improve clients' ability to find messages or groups of
messages in an IMAP mailstore. As a secondary goal, the WG will design
its extensions so as to minimize client/server round trips and bandwidth
overhead.

In particular the Working Group is chartered to finalize and publish the
following IMAP extensions as proposed standards:

(a) A SORT extension specifying new sort criteria for header fields
containing email addresses. This extension will be based on
draft-karp-morg-sortdisplay-00.txt.

(b) A SEARCH extension specifying new search criteria for header fields
containing email addresses.

(c) A LIST extension for returning STATUS information in LIST responses.
This extension will be based on
draft-melnikov-imapext-status-in-list-00.txt.

(d) An extension that formalizes a way to return message counters by
message context using STATUS and SEARCH commands.

(e) An extension that specifies Internet-search-engine-like searching.
Such searches would be more flexible (and less formally defined) than
substring-based searches, and may return their results in a significant
order. They may include "relevance" scores or similar information that
could be useful to the user.

(f) New collation algorithms such as "ignore whitespace" and "numeric,
ignoring punctuation". The WG group will determine which collations are
needed, taking into consideration the needs of the protocols that use
the collation framework.

(g) An extension that allows searching for messages within a message
thread. This extension will be based on
draft-gulbrandsen-imap-inthread-03.txt.

(h) An extension that allows searching of multiple mailboxes at the same
time (based on draft-melnikov-imapext-multimailbox-search-03.txt), or of
multiple mailbox views. The WG will determine which approach (mailboxes
or views) is more suitable as part of its work.

Additional documents may be added this list, but only via a charter
revision. There must also be demonstrable willingness in the IMAP
development community to actually implement a given extension before it
can be added to this charter.

Revising or replacing the base IMAP4rev1 specification (RFC 3501) is out
of the scope of this WG. This WG will ensure that all extensions it
proposes take into account any existing problems in the base
specification of IMAP, and do not make them worse nor make the problems
harder to address in the future.
====

---------------------------------

Network Configuration (netconf) 
================================ 

Last Modified: 2008-12-16

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf

Chair(s):
Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Mehmet Ersue <[email-masked]>

Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>

Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Charlie Kaufman <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: in msg body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/

Description of Working Group:
Charlie Kaufman is Technical Advisor for Security Matters

Configuration of networks of devices has become a critical requirement
for operators in today's highly interoperable networks. Operators from
large to small have developed their own mechanisms or used vendor
specific mechanisms to transfer configuration data to and from a
device, and for examining device state information which may impact
the configuration. Each of these mechanisms may be different in
various aspects, such as session establishment, user authentication,
configuration data exchange, and error responses.

The NETCONF Working Group is chartered to produce a protocol suitable
for network configuration, with the following characteristics:

- Provides retrieval mechanisms which can differentiate between
  configuration data and non-configuration data
- Is extensible enough so that vendors will provide access to all
  configuration data on the device using a single protocol
- Has a programmatic interface (avoids screen scraping and
  formatting-related changes between releases)
- Uses a textual data representation, that can be easily manipulated
  using non-specialized text manipulation tools.
- Supports integration with existing user authentication methods
- Supports integration with existing configuration database systems
- Supports network wide configuration transactions (with features such
  as locking and rollback capability)
- Is as transport-independent as possible
- Provides support for asynchronous notifications.

The NETCONF protocol is using XML for data encoding purposes, because
XML is a widely deployed standard which is supported by a large number
of applications.

The NETCONF protocol should be independent of the data definition
language and data models used to describe configuration and state
data.

However, the authorization model used in the protocol is dependent on
the data model. Although these issues must be fully addressed to
develop standard data models, only a small part of this work will be
initially addressed. This group will specify requirements for standard
data models in order to fully support the NETCONF protocol, such as:

- identification of principals, such as user names or distinguished
names
- mechanism to distinguish configuration from non-configuration data
- XML namespace conventions
- XML usage guidelines

The initial work started in 2003 and has already been completed and was
restricted to following items:

  a) NETCONF Protocol Specification, which defines the operational
model,
     protocol operations, transaction model, data model requirements,
     security requirements, and transport layer requirements.
  b) NETCONF over SSH Specification: Implementation Mandatory,
  c) NETCONF over BEEP Specification: Implementation Optional,
  d) NETCONF over SOAP Specification: Implementation Optional.

  These documents define how the NETCONF protocol is used with each
  transport protocol selected by the working group, and how it meets
  the security and transport layer requirements of the NETCONF Protocol
  Specification.

  e) NETCONF Notification Specification, which defines mechanisms that
     provide an asynchronous message notification delivery service for
     the NETCONF protocol.  NETCONF Notification is an optional
     capability built on top of the base NETCONF definition and
     provides the capabilities and operations necessary to support
     this service.

  The NETCONF notification specification has been finished now as well.

In the current phase of the incremental development of NETCONF the
workgroup will focus on following items:

1. Fine-grain locking: The base NETCONF protocol only provides a lock
   for the entire configuration datastore, which is not deemed to meet
   important operational and security requirements. The NETCONF working
   group will produce a standards-track RFC specifying a mechanism for
   fine-grain locking of the NETCONF configuration datastore.

2. NETCONF monitoring: It is considered best practice for IETF working
   groups to include management of their protocols within the scope of
   the solution they are providing. The NETCONF working group will
   produce a standards-track RFC with mechanisms allowing NETCONF
   itself to be used to monitor some aspects of NETCONF operation.

3. Schema advertisement: Currently the NETCONF protocol is able to
   advertise which protocol features are supported on a particular
   netconf-capable device. However, there is currently no way to
discover
   which XML Schema are supported on the device. The NETCONF working
   group will produce a standards-track RFC with mechanisms making this
   discovery possible (this item may be merged with "NETCONF monitoring"
   into a single document).

   Note: The schema-advertisement material has been merged into the
   NETCONF monitoring document based on WG consensus.

4. NETCONF over TLS: Based on implementation experience there is a
   need for a standards track document to define NETCONF over TLS as an
   optional transport for the NETCONF protocol.

5. NETCONF default handling: NETCONF today does not define whether
   default values should be returned by the server in replies
   to requests for reading configuration and state data. Different
   clients have different needs to receive or not to receive
   default data. The NETCONF working group will produce a
   standards-track RFC defining a mechanism that allows
   NETCONF clients to control whether default data is returned
   by the netconf server.

6. NETCONF implementations have shown that the specification in RFC4741
   is not 100% clear and has lead to different interpretations and
implementations. 
   Also some errors have been uncovered. So the WG will do an rfc4741bis
with
   following constraints:

     - bug fixes are to be done
     - clarifications can be done
     - extensions can be done only when needed to fix bugs 
       or inconsistencies (i.e. we are not doing a NETCONF V2)
     - The work can be started based on the discussion in IETF #73 (see
        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-3.pdf).

   Note: A technical errata has been posted on rfc4742. If the work on
   rfc4741bis uncovers any additional fixes/clarifications that need
   to be made to rfc4742, the WG may consider to also do a rfc4742bis
   as part of this work-item.

The following items have been identified as important but are currently
not considered in scope for re-chartering and may be candidates for work
when there is community consensus to take them on:

- NETCONF Notification content
- Access Control requirements
- NETCONF access to SMI-based MIB data

Goals and Milestones:
Done   Working Group formed
Done   Submit initial Netconf Protocol draft
Done   Submit initial Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft
Done   Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf Protocol draft
Done   Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf over
(transport-TBD)
            draft
Done   Submit final version of the Netconf Protocol draft to the IESG
Done   Submit final version of the Netconf over SOAP draft to the IESG
Done   Submit final version of the Netconf over BEEP draft to the IESG
Done   Submit final version of the Netconf over SSH draft to the IESG
Done   Update charter
Done   Submit first version of NETCONF Notifications document
Done   Begin WGLC of NETCONF Notifications document
Done   Submit final version of NETCONF Notifications document to IESG
            for consideration as Proposed Standard
Done   -00 draft for fine Grain Locking
Done   -00 draft for NETCONF over TLS
Done   -00 draft for NETCONF Monitoring
Done   -00 draft for Schema Advertisement
Done   Early Review of client authentication approach (for NETCONF over
            TLS) with the security community at IETF 71
N.A.     WG Last Call on Schema Advertisement after IETF72
            Schema Advertisement has been merged into Monitoring
Done    WG Last Call on NETCONF over TLS after IETF72
Done    Netconf over TLS to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards
Dec 2008  WG Last Call on Fine Grain Locking after IETF73
Dec 2008  Send Partial Locking to IESG for consideration as Proposed
Standards
Jan 2009   Initial WG draft for with-defaults capability
Feb 2009   Initial WG draft for rfc4741bis
Mar 2009   WG Last Call on NETCONF Monitoring after IETF73
Apr 2009   WG Last Call on rfc4741bis
Apr 2009   WG Last Call on with-defaults
Jun 2009   rfc4741bis to IESG for considerations as Proposed Standard
Jun 2009   with-defaults capability to IESG for considerations as
Proposed Standard

-------------------------------

IP Performance Metrics (ippm) 
-------------------------------------------- 
Last Modified: 2008-12-19 
 
Status: Active Working Group 
 
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm 
 
Chair(s): 
	Matthew Zekauskas [[email-masked]] 
         Henk Uijterwaal [[email-masked]] 
 
Transport Area Director(s): 
	Magnus Westerlund [email-masked]]  
         Lars Eggert [[email-masked]] 
 
Transport Area Advisor: 
	Lars Eggert [[email-masked]] 
 
Mailing Lists: 
	General Discussion: [email-masked]  
         To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm  
         In Body: subscribe 
	Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/index.html 

Description of Working Group: 
 
The IPPM WG has developed a set of standard metrics that can be 
applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet 
data delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they 
can be performed by network operators, end users, or independent 
testing groups. It is important that the metrics not represent a 
value judgment (i.e. define "good" and "bad"), but rather provide 
unbiased quantitative measures of performance. 
 
Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as 
NOC/NIC services, are beyond the scope of this working group. 
 
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and 
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. 
This is the current list of fundamental metrics and the existing 
set of derived metrics. 
 
  - connectivity 
 
  - one-way delay and loss 
 
  - round-trip delay. 
 
  - delay variation 
 
  - loss patterns 
 
  - packet reordering 
 
  - bulk transport capacity 
 
  - link bandwidth capacity 
 
  - packet duplication 
 
The working group will advance these metrics along the standards 
track within the IETF.  It will be guided by applicable IESG documents 
in this area. Additionally, the WG will produce Proposed Standard 
AS documents, comparable to applicability statements in RFC 2026, 
that will focus on procedures for measuring the individual metrics 
and how these metrics characterize features that are important to 
different service classes, such as bulk transport, periodic streams, 
packet bursts or multimedia streams.  Each AS document will discuss 
the performance characteristics that are pertinent to a specified 
service class; clearly identify the set of metrics that aid in the 
description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies 
required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements 
for the common, unambiguous reporting of testing results.  The AS 
documents can also discuss the use of the metrics to verify performance 
expectations, such as SLA's, report results to specific user groups 
or investigate network problems.  The focus is, again, to define 
how this should be done, not to define a value judgment. The WG may 
define additional statistics for its metrics if needed. Specific 
topics of these AS documents must be approved by the Area Directors 
as charter additions. 
 
The WG will work on documents describing how to compose and decompose 
the results of its metrics over time or space. 
 
The WG has produced protocols to enable communication among test 
equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and 
TWAMP respectively).  OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the 
standards track.   Further development of these protocols will also 
be done inside the WG. 
 
The metrics developed by the WG were developed inside an active 
measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics 
produce their own traffic.  However, most metrics can be used inside 
a passive context as well.  No work is planned is this area though, 
this may be changed with AD approval. 
 
The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards 
bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) 
to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF 
process, IPPM metrics definitions will be subject to as rigorous a 
scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other protocol 
standards. The IPPM WG will interact with other areas of IETF 
activity whose scope intersect with the requirement of these specific 
metrics.  The WG will, on request, provide input to other IETF WG 
on the use of these metrics.

------------------------

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:59:33 -0500

Hi Dan,

Is it possible to send us the proposed charter text for netconf and  
ippm?  I don't have any particular concerns about rechartering these  
groups, but I would be willing to look over the text.

Margaret

On Jan 4, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:44:21 -0500

None of the documents are on the DNS early warning list.

         Olafur