ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
AGENDA
------
1.0 Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
1.1.1 91-12-05
1.1.2 91-12-12
1.1.3 92-01-02
1.1.4 92-01-23
1.3 Next Meeting
2.0 Review of Action Items
3.0 Protocol Actions
3.1 IP Type of Service
<draft-almquist-tos-02.txt>
<draft-ietf-rreq-forwarding>
3.2 SMDS to Draft Standard
<RFC 1209>
<draft-ietf-snmp-smdssipmib>
3.3 RFC 822 Message Extensions
<draft-ietf-822ext-messagebodies-03.txt>
<draft-ietf-822ext-msghead-01.txt>
3.4 Network Fax
<draft-ietf-netfax-netimage-02.txt>
3.5 Character MIBS
<draft-ietf-charmib-rs232like-03.txt>
<draft-ietf-charmib-parallelprinter-02.txt
<draft-ietf-charmib-charmib-02.txt>
3.6 Point to Point Protocol (Noel Chiappa)
<draft-ietf-pppext-ipcp-03.txt>
<draft-ietf-pppext-lcp-02.txt>
3.7 Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure
<draft-ietf-nisi-infrastructure>
3.8 SNMP Security documents
<draft-ietf-snmpsec-admin>
<draft-ietf-snmpsec-mib>
<draft-ietf-snmpsec-protocols>
3.9 X.400 Documents
<draft-ietf-kille-88to84downgrade>
<draft-ietf-kille-x_400mapping>
3.10 Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming
<draft-ietf-osids-friendlynaming>
3.11 TCP Extensions for High Speed High Delay Paths
<draft-ietf-tcplw-tcpext-01.txt>
3.12 IP over FDDI to Draft
<RFC 1103>
4.0 Technical Management Issues
4.1 Interoperability testing at IETF meetings.
4.2 IAB Standards Process Document
4.3 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol
4.4 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
4.5 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents"
4.6 Email Host Requirements
4.7 Working Group Early Warning System
5.0 IESG Technical Evolution document.
6.0 Working Group Actions
6.1 Audio/Video Teleconferencing (avt)
6.2 Token Ring Monitoring MIB (trmon)
MINUTES
-------
1.0 Adminstrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
Several items were added to the agenda. Review of the action items,
approval of the minutes, and technical management issues were
deferred until the next meeting.
1.2 Review of the Minutes
The review of outstanding minutes was deferred until the next
meeting.
1.3 Next Meeting
The IESG agreed to meet again by teleconference February 20th. Due
to the large backlog of work the February 20th meeting was extended
to 3 hours, ending at 3 PM EST rather than the normal 2PM EST. A
special purpose teleconference will be called with Erik Huizer, Dave
Piscitello, Phill Gross, and any other available person to discuss
the outstanding OSI X.400 and X.500 documents on February 13th.
ACTION: Coya, Vaudreuil -- If Huizer and Piscitello can make the date,
schedule a 1 hour teleconference January 13th from 12PM to 1PM EST.
2) Review of the Action Items
Review of the action items was deferred until the next IESG
teleconference.
3) Protocol Actions
3.1 IP Type of Service
3.1.1 <draft-almquist-tos-02>
The IESG has received several comments on the TOS document, and all
comments were successfully resolved.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After approval from the Internet Area Directors,
craft and send a recommendation to the IAB to publish the TOS document
as a Proposed Standard.
3.1.2 <draft-ietf-rreq-forwarding-04>
The IESG discussed the IP Forwarding Table MIB. The MIB has been
delayed by the IESG due to a dependency upon the TOS document. Now
that the TOS document is ready for publication, the IESG approved
the MIB.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB
recommending the "IP Forwarding Table MIB" be published as a Proposed
Standard RFC. Include in the recommendation a note indicating the
dependency on the TOS document.
3.2 SMDS to Draft Standard
3.2.1 <RFC 1209>
The IESG continues to wait for information on the operational
experience with the IP over SMDS protocol. The IESG has the report
on interoperable implementations demonstrated at Interop, but seeks
information on continuing operational use among real users.
ACTION: Vaudreuil --- Send a message to George Clapp reminding him that
the IESG needs information on the extent of operational deployment
before it can move IP over SMDS to Draft Standard.
3.2.2 <draft-ietf-snmp-smdssipmib>
The SMDS Interface MIB is ready for publication.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB to
elevate the "Definitions of Managed Objects for the SIP Interface Type"
as a Proposed Standard RFC.
3.3 RFC 822 Message Format Extensions.
3.3.1 <draft-ietf-822ext-messagebodies-03>
The IESG discussed the message format extensions (MIME). Several
comments were received in response to the IESG's Last Call. In
particular, comments were made objecting to the technical decisions
made in the working group, and the process by which these decisions
were made. The specific technical and proceedural issues raised
were discussed by the IESG, and the IESG is satisfied that adequate
group discussions occured with reasonable consideration of the
proferred design choices.
The IESG discussed the general process for dealing with such
complaints. In general, the IESG reviews each comment made in
response to the Last Call. The IESG felt that each such comment
deserves consideration and an official response from the IESG. In
the specific case of objections which are raised about a technical
design choice, the working group must be able to document that the
suggested alternative was considered, and after reasonable debate
was rejected.
POSITION: In the case where a participant of a working group objects
to a technical decision made by the working group to reject a
particular proposal, the working group must be able do document either
in the mail archives or in the minutes of face to face meetings that
the alternatives were considered and rejected.
POSITION: Any person who raises a technical or procedural objection
in response to a Last Call from the IESG should receive a formal reply
from the IESG noting their comments and (responding to their
objections)
ACTION: Hobby -- Respond to the several persons who have made comments
in response to the IESG Last Call.
Several deficiencies in the specification were noted in the
specification. Among the shortcoming was 1) a lack of rigor in the
citation of external specifications and 2) an ambiguity about the
semantics of the external reference content-type.
The Internet Draft "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions):"
will require improved citations of external specifications and a
more precise specification of the External-Reference sub-type, prior
to publication as a Proposed Standard.
ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Notify the 822 Message Format Extensions working
group that the Internet Draft "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions)" needs to have editorial changes before it can be
recommended for Proposed Standard. Send the notification to the Working
Group mailing list and the Working Group chairman.
3.3.1 <draft-ietf-822ext-msghead>
The IESG discussed the multi-lingual extensions for RFC 822 messages
headers. Several concerns were raised in the IESG. One of the
message header encoding mechanisms is slightly different that the
analogous encoding in MIME. Second, there was concern among some
IESG members that changing the header parsing engines to deal with
the backward compatible changes may be too costly to do independent
of consideration of other header changes being considered in other
forums. Due to the full agenda and a desire to complete as many
protocol actions as possible, the IESG deferred further discussion
until the February 20th teleconference.
ACTION: Vaudreuil: Reschedule the RFC-Headers discussion for the
February 20th Teleconference.
The Network Fax working group submitted the Internet Draft "A File
Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet" for Proposed
Standard. The IESG discussed this document, and agreed that the
format chosen, a subset of TIFF, was a reasonable format for the
sending of fax-like images. The wording of the current document is
unclear about the scope of intended usage of this format. The IESG
is not entirely comfortable with the choice of TIFF a common general
purpose image format for the Internet because it could not handle
color or grayscale images. The IESG felt unable to take a position
on whether TIFF as a whole or a larger TIFF subset would be
acceptable as a common general purpose image format.
ACTION: Hobby -- Communicate to the NETFAX working group the concerns
of the IESG on the Internet Draft "A File Format for the Exchange of
Images in the Internet". Seek clarification of the intended scope of
the Network Fax specification.
3.5 Character MIBs
Three MIBS were submitted to the IESG for consideration as Proposed
Standards. The IESG reviewed each, and approved them for Proposed
Standard status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB that the
Internet Drafts "Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
Devices", "Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
Hardware Devices", and "Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like
Hardware Devices" be published as Proposed Standard RFC's.
The IESG noted the miscommunication between the IESG and the Working
Group which caused nearly a years delay in the publication of these
documents. These character MIB's have been widely implemented and
tested to the point where they almost meet the requirements for
Draft Standards. The IESG reaffirmed it's view that multiple
interoperable implementations are not required for Proposed
Standard.
3.8 Point-to-Point Protocols to Draft Standard
<draft-ietf-pppext-ipcp> <draft-ietf-pppext-lcp>
The base Point-to-Point documents were submitted to the IESG for
consideration as Proposed Standards. These documents are dramatic
reworks of the original documents, with extensive editorial changes.
The actual technical changes are relatively minor, and are nominally
backward compatible. The Working Group originally asked the IESG
for Draft Standard status given the lengthy time and numbers of
implementations. The IESG discussed the current implemenations, and
while there are multiple interoperable implementations of PPP, they
do not reflect the current documents and do not demonstrate the new
features of the current documents.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write a recommendation to the IAB to publish the
Internet Drafts "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)" and
the "The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of Multi-Protocol
Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links" as Proposed Standards. Send the
recommendation as soon as final versions of the documents have been
received.
3.9 Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure
The Internet Draft "Building a Network Information Services
Infrastructure" was reviewed by the User Services area director and
recommended by the IESG for publication as an FYI RFC.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a notification to the RFC Editor
that the Internet Draft "Building a Network Information Services
Infrastructure" should be published as an FYI RFC.
The IESG has received a request from the SNMP Security Working Group
to recommend the Internet Drafts "SNMP Administrative Model",
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP Parties",
and "SNMP Security Protocols" for Proposed Standard. A Last Call
was issued, but no action was taken by the IESG pending the two week
comment period.
The IESG was alerted to the potential issues in this protocol of
export control. The SNMP Security documents specify the use of
technology which may not be freely shared among IETF participating
countries. While the IESG understood the problem, it was not
willing to stop the publication of such protocols when clear need is
demonstrated. The IESG did discuss adding a section to such
protocol documents flagging the protocols as using potentially
export controlled technology.
ACTION: Gross, Crocker -- Inquire with the IAB on behalf of the IESG
about the desirability of flagging software export control issues in
RFCs.
The IAB has asked for discussion with the IESG on two X.400 related
RFCs, "X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading" and "Mapping between
X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822". The IAB wanted information on
the degree of IETF Working Group involvement and RARE consultation.
Because neither of the OSI Integration Area Directors where present,
discussion was deferred until a special topics teleconference
February 13th.
3.12 User Friendly naming
<draft-ietf-osids-friendlynaming>
Progress is being made in resolving the outstanding issues in the
X.500 User Friendly Naming proposals. The document has been split
into two, one specifying User Friendly naming format, and the other
specifying the "fuzzy" matching algorithm for searching the
directory. These documents have been posted as Internet Drafts. No
action is required by the IESG at this time.
No official notification from the IESG was made to the OSI Directory
Services Working Group remanding the documents back for re-work,
however, Steve Hardcastle-Kille has made such an announcement to the
working group and has solicited review of the proposed changes.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a message the IAB notifying them that new
Internet Drafts have been posted.
3.13 TCP Extensions
<draft-ietf-tcplw-tcpext>
The SACK option has proven to be controversial. The TCP Extensions
document is currently being split into two, and has been withdrawn
from IESG consideration until these changes are made.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Drop the TCP-Extensions document from the Active
queue of the IESG.
3.14 IP over FDDI.
<RFC 1103>
A request was received from the dormant IP over FDDI working group
to elevate RFC 1103 "Proposed standard for the transmission of IP
datagrams over FDDI Networks" to Draft Standard. The IESG briefly
discussed a set of minor changes that would be helpful to make
before being elevated to Draft Standard.
ACTION: Chiappa -- Task the IP over FDDI working group to edit a new
version of IP over FDDI reflecting current usage of the protocol.
4) Technical Management Issues
Discussion of the many technical management issues facing the IESG
was deferred until the February 20th Teleconference.
5) IESG Technical Evolution Document
Discussion of IESG Technical Evolution Document was deferred until a
future Teleconference.
6. Working Group Actions
1) Audio/ Video Transport
The IESG continued discussion of the proposed Audio/Video Transport
Working Group. No new charter has been received in response to the
IESG concerns. In the absence of the new charter, the IESG was
unable to approve this Working Group.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to Steve Casner reminding him that
the IESG cannot approve his proposed working group until an acceptable
charter has been filed with the IESG.
2) Token Ring Monitoring Working Group
A charter was presented to the IESG for a working group to apply the
Remote Lan Monitoring work to the Token Ring LAN technology.
Without objection the IESG approved this working group.
ACTION Vaudreuil -- Announce the Token Ring Monitoring Working Group to
the IETF mailing list.
