Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave / Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Agenda
------
1.0 Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
1.2 Introduction of new IESG members
1.3 Review & Approval of old minutes
1.4 Set date of next IESG teleconference
2.0 IAB Architecture Retreat
3.0 Protocol Actions
3.1 Type 0f Service
3.2 TCP Large Windows
3.3 Appletalk Tunneling (AURP)
3.4 Point to Point Protocol, LCP, IPCP, and Authentication
3.5 DISI X.500 Executive Summary
4) RFC Editor Actions
4.1 Mail Checking Protocol
4.2 Mail Send Protocol
5) Technical Management
5.1 Review of User Friendly Naming teleconference
Minutes
--------
1.0 Administrivia
1.1 Minutes
A review of outstanding Minutes was deferred.
1.2 Welcome to Huizer and Piscitello
Phill Gross announced two additions to the IESG, Erik Huizer from Surfnet and David Piscitello from Bellcore. They will serve as co-area directors for the OSI Integration area.
1.3 Next IESG meeting
The IESG is planning to meet again by teleconference January 23rd.
The IESG has been invited to the IAB Architecture Retreat January
8th and 9th.
2. Architecture Retreat
The IAB is hosting a follow up Internet Architecture Retreat. The
first one was held at the San Diego Supercomputer Center in June 91.
The Minutes of that meeting are published as RFC 1287. This meeting
will have a primary emphasis on security.
Phill Gross called the IESG to a renewed focus on internet technical
evolution, and has scheduled discussion on the IESG Technical
Planning Document.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Schedule a discussion on the IESG technical
Evolution document for the January 23 Teleconference.
3. Protocol Actions
3.1 Type of Service
The type of service documents are just about complete. There is one
remaining technical nit and a few small changes needed. The IESG
reviewed the current document and is satisfied. Further detailed
discussion will occur at the January 23rd teleconference after the
final document has been published as an Internet Draft.
ACTION: Vaudreuil: Issue a last call after a new version of the TOS
document is submitted.
The Forwarding Table MIB document was approved at the last IESG
teleconference. Because of a dependency between the Forwarding
Table MIB and the TOS document, the last call was delayed. This
call should be send out at the same time as the TOS last call.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send out a last call notification on the
forwarding table MIB at the same time the TOS last call is sent.
3.2 TCP Large Windows
A final version of the TCP Extensions for High Performance has been
sent to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a last call on the TCP High Performance
extensions document.
ACTION: Coya -- Schedule a presentation at the next IETF meeting on the
TCP Large Window specification. Also schedule a separate presentation
on Cray Research's work on high speed TCP.
ACTION: Borman -- Write a technical summary for an IESG recommendation
on the TCP Extensions.
3.3 Appletalk Tunneling (AURP)
The IESG reviewed the Appletalk Tunneling document. A last call was
issues, and several comments were received. There is some degree of
unhappiness in the community over the process in which this document
was written. It appeared the development process was not as open as
it could be.
It is not clear that this document should not be advanced as a
Informational document describing an Apple Protocol. The AURP
proposal deals with both Appletalk Tunneling, and a larger question
of routing and disjoint namespace management. The IESG did not have
enough information to make a decision.
ACTION: Chiappa -- Investigate the Appletalk Tunneling documents both
in terms of their constituency and technical focus.
3.4 Point to Point Protocol, LCP, IPCP, and Authentication
The Point to Point Protocol document have undergone yet another last
minute change. The IESG welcomes the efforts to find and eliminate
bugs in the protocols before re-submission as proposed standards.
The IESG has agreed to hold off consideration of these documents for
several weeks to insure their stability before advancing them to
Proposed Standard.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Issue a last call for the PPP documents once they
have become stable.
4.5 DISI X.500 Executive Summary
The Directory Information Services Infrastructure working group has
submitted an Informational document to the IESG for publication.
The IESG applauds this effort. Erik Huizer has requested that the
document be discussed with the RARE WG3.
A few loose ends were spotted. The abstract provides references to
additional references not included in the document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a "Notification" to the RFC Editor for the
X.500 Executive Summary document after discussing the documents with
Rare WG3 and resolution of editorial nits.
5. RFC Editor Actions
This IESG has been reminded on several occasions that there continue
to be outstanding RFC Editor actions. The IESG has reviewed each of
the actions, and in many cases has raised technical objections to
the documents. A discussion ensued about the expected role of the
IESG in giving advise to the RFC Editor.
The IESG currently reviews Informational and Experimental protocol
for the RFC Editor. This review is focused on 1) Conflict and
coordination with existing standards efforts, and 2) A "Danger
limitation" review both in terms of security and network usage.
It is not clear how the IESG became the arbiter of protocol "Safety"
for experimental protocols, but it is willing to continue this
function. Currently the IESG notifies the RFC Editor when serious
objections have been raised. The confusion and delay occur in
resolving the conflict.
Is it the responsibility of the IESG to act as an agent of the RFC
Editor in requiring changes to a document to be published, or is it
IESG responsible to simply notify the IESG editor of the problems
and suggested fixes? The question becomes complex. Many objections
raised in the IESG can, and are expected to be resolved with
informal dialogue with the author. Other objections result from a
basic disagreement either in terms of technical adequacy or intended
scope. Many of the worst delays result from apparent deadlock.
No immediate resolution of this problem was discussed. Further
off-line discussion between Vaudreuil, Reynolds, and Postel was
suggested.
ACTION: Vaudreuil and Reynolds -- Converse with the RFC Editor and
clarify the expectations of the IESG and RFC Editor in the review of
Informational and Experimental Protocols.
5.1 Message Send Protocol
No resolution between the IESG and the authors has been reached.
ACTION: S. Crocker -- Offer specific text to the authors of the Message
Send Protocol and the RFC Editor.
5.2 Mail Checking Protocol
The IESG reviewed this protocol. Specific security concerns were
raised and send to the authors of the document and the RFC editor.
