马德里动物园的“熊猫姐妹”
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
百度 谢长廷表示，事件发生的第二天，“台驻日代表处”就台湾渔船遭日本船舰打水炮威胁事件提出抗议。OUTSTANDING TASKS
Last updated: July 10, 2025
* DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED
o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9770 (Notification
of Revoked Access Tokens in the Authentication and Authorization
for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework) [IANA #1421561].
- Added 2025-08-04 (2 telechats ago)
* OPEN ACTION ITEMS
o Roman Danyliw to take a look at Datatracker documentation of
document states and update as needed.
- Added 2025-08-04 (16 telechats ago)
o Cindy Morgan, Andy Newton, Ketan Talaulikar, and Paul Wouters
to work on a proposal for submitting appeals via the Datatracker.
- Added 2025-08-04 (5 telechats ago)
o Paul Wouters to propose a sentence to add to the "IESG Statement on
Clarifying the Use of BCP 14 Key Words" regarding normative
language in diagrams.
- Added 2025-08-04 (4 telechats ago)
o Mahesh Jethanandani and Ketan Talaulikar to work with Dhruv Dhody
and Suresh Krishnan to look into potential retreat locations in
Asia.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o IESG to draft a response to "Appeal to the forwarding of draft-
ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce."
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Cindy Morgan to create/update the Non-WG List spreadsheet so the
IESG can audit those lists.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Med Boucadair and éric Vyncke to file a GitHub issue about doing WG
calls for adoption in the Datatracker. (This will need to be
socialized with the WG chairs once implemented.)
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Roman Danyliw to follow up with Jay Daley about the slide takedown
request.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Ketan Talaulikar to schedule a BOF AMA a couple of weeks before the
BOF deadline.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o éric Vyncke and Mike Bishop to schedule AMAs for people considering
accepting nominations for IESG positions (on in Madrid, one remote
after Madrid).
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Roman Danyliw and Mahesh Jethanandani to draft update to "Guidance
on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents" statement.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Roman Danyliw to check with the Trust about the IESG Statement on
Copyright.
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Paul Wouters to suggest next steps on "IESG Statement on Maximizing
Encrypted Access To IETF Information."
- Added 2025-08-04 (1 telechat ago)
o Med Boucadair and Mahesh Jethanandani to review "IESG Statement on
Proposed Status for IETF Documents Reserving Resources for Example
Purposes" and propose what needs to be updated.
- Added 2025-08-04 (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
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
(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:
- 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
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)