Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information.
ATTENDEES
---------
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
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
AGENDA
------
1. Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
1.2.1 February 6th, 1992
1.2.2 February 20th, 1992
1.3 Next Meeting
5.1 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol (S. Crocker)
5.2 Report from the ROAD Group (PG)
5.3 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
5.4 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
5.5 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker)
5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker)
5.7 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker)
5.8 OSI Integration or Multiprotocol Integration?
5.9 Working Group Ownership of Standards
5.10 EUnet Objection to MIME.
6. IESG Technical Evolution document.
7. Working Group Actions
7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferenceing (avt)
7.2 User Documents II (userdoc2)
7.3 BGP Deployment (bgpdepl)
7.4 Chassis MIB (chassis)
7.5 Network Access Server Requirements (nasreq)
MINUTES
-------
1. Administrivia
1.1 Bash Agenda
The IESG decided to focus on ROAD discussions, as well as the
question about "ownership" of standards.
1.2 Approval of minutes
The minutes of the February 6th Teleconference were approved.
Additional clarification is need on the minutes of the 20th, and
approval was deferred until the next meeting.
1.3 Next Meeting
The IESG plans to meet twice during the IETF Plenary in San Diego.
They will meet for lunch Wednesday, and dinner Thursday night after
the Open Plenary session. Proposed topics include mail related
protocols and related issues.
2. Review of Action Items
The action items were reviewed by Email prior to this meeting.
Chuck Davin requested IESG attention for his outstanding action item
to begin the process of evolving the SNMP protocol.
3. Protocol Actions
3.1 TCP Extensions for High Performance
The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-tcplw-tcpext-92> for Proposed Standard Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to
publish the internet draft "TCP Extensions for High Performance" as a
Proposed Standard.
A comment was sent to the IETF list in response to the last call.
The comment was satisfactorily resolved by Dave Borman. The IESG
briefly discussed the need to respond officially respond to last
call comments.
POSITION: All comments sent to the IESG or IETF in response to a Last
Call should receive an official response, either by the IESG as a whole
or the relevant Area Director,
3.2 Frame Relay MIB (Chuck Davin)
The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib-06> for publication as a Proposed Standard.
This document reflects minor changes from the version 05 originally
referenced in the last call. A second last call has been issued,
and no comments were received.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to
publish the internet draft "Management Information Base for Frame Relay
DTEs" as a Proposed Standard.
3.3 Network Fax
The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-netfax-netimage-03> for publication as a Proposed
Standard. The objections raised by the IESG were adequately
addressed by the working group with editorial changes.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to
publish the internet draft "A File Format for the Exchange of Images in
the Internet" as a Proposed Standard.
3.4 X.400 Documents
The IAB has requested discussion with the IESG on the proper Working
Group "ownership" of to X.400 specification, "X.400 1988 to 1984
downgrading" and "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC
822". These documents were submitted to the IETF by Steve
Hardcastle-Kille, and after review by the IETF were recommended to
the IAB.
The IESG has allowed independent submissions to the standards
process with adequate IETF review. In this case, a BOF was called
during the Santa Fe Plenary to review the document. The document
has also been reviewed by RARE Working Group 1. The IAB has
insisted that a Working Group be designated as the forum for future
evolution of this protocol. The IAB has also asked for confirmation
that the author is willing to cede change control to the IAB.
Because this document is the product of the efforts of many groups,
including RARE WG1 and the IETF as a whole, the IESG resisted
placing the document in an existing IETF working group. After
discussion, the IESG agreed to pursue chartering the RARE Working
Group 1 jointly as a IETF working group. This step, similar to the
joint chartering of two TSIG working groups as IETF working groups
was seen as reasonable. RARE WG's are open to all participants, and
do not require formal "membership". While RARE "members" receive
funding to attend, this does not preclude others from
participating.
ACTION: Gross -- Present the IESG plan to charter the Rare WG1 as an
IETF working group as response to the IAB's request for a Working Group
"home" for the X.400 documents from Steve Hardcastle-Kille.
POSITION: The IESG endorses the practice of jointly chartering Working
Groups with other organizations for the purposes of standardization.
To qualify, these working groups must meet the IETF requirements for
openness, reporting, and participation. The IESG strongly encourages
such groups to meet periodically at IETF Plenary meetings.
4.0 RFC Editor Actions
4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes
The author has been asked to clarify the intended status of this
document. It is unclear whether this is a standard track submission
or an experimental protocol.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Resend the query to the author of the "Hybrid
NETBIOS End-Nodes" document and Cc the RFC Editor and IESG.
4.2 Message Send Protocol
The IESG has received a request from Jon Postel to clarify the
current status of this document. An IESG response was sent to the
RFC Editor December 10th indicating the IESG displeasure with the
document. The IESG during the January 2nd teleconference
reconsidered that message, and assigned Steve Crocker the action to
craft text which would satisfy the IESG. This action continues.
The IESG agreed that this action has persisted too long and agreed
to allow the document be published as is, even though flawed.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG position on the document
"Message Send Protocol" to the RFC Editor. In particular, notify the
Editor that the document can be published in it's current form.
5.0 Technical Management Issues
5.2 Report from the ROAD Group
The ROAD ad-hoc working party is close to completing their charter
to find "A solution" to the pressing requirements to extend the
routing and addressing architecture to support continued Internet
Growth.
The pressing need to make forward progress in addressing the
immanent addressing and routing problems necessitate quick action,
starting at the San Diego IETF meeting. The ROAD Group was chartered
to provide at least one workable strawman. The IESG expressed a
strong desire that the hard, groundbreaking work of the ROAD group,
be presented to the IETF community in such a manner that it can,
without excessive delay and rehash, serve as a starting point for
the large engineering effort to solve the global routing and
addressing problems. To accomplish this difficult charter the work
was conducted in a necessarily closed environment to reach closure
on a specific proposal in a short period of time.
It is the role of the IESG to manage the process by which the ROAD
proposals may be translated into Working Groups. IETF acceptance of
the ROAD proposals requires community buy-in. This buy in can only
occur with a through review of the specific options considered by
the ROAD group, any other credible proposals offered, and a through
understanding of the options chosen by the group. To this end, a
plenary presentation and a series of BOF's have been scheduled
during the San Diego IETF Plenary to describe the concluding of the
ROAD group. To apply the constructive input of the ROAD group, the
IESG recommends early and wide dissemination of as much of the ROAD
work as possible. Review of the proposals before the IETF meeting
will allow constructive exploration and criticism of the ROAD
approaches at the IETF meeting, and hopefully result in specific
working groups to begin work on solutions.
7.0 Working Group Actions
7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferenceing (avt)
The IESG reviewed approved the latest version of the Audio/Video
Teleconferenceing charter.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the Audio Video Teleconferencing Working
Group to the IETF.
7.2 User Documents II (userdoc2)
The IESG reviewed and approved the User Documents II charter.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the User Documents II Working Group to
the IETF.
7.3 BGP Deployment (bgpdepl)
The IESG discussed the BGP Deployment charter. The IESG agreed that
the mailing list should be separate from the IWG mailing list. The
charter was approved pending the submission of a new working group
mailing list.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the BGP Deployment Working Group to the
IETF after a new email address is provided.
7.4 Chassis MIB (chassis)
The IESG reviewed and approved the Chassis MIB charter.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the Chassis MIB Working Group to the
IETF.
7.5 NAS Requirements. (nasreq)
The IESG discussed the proposed NAS charter. The charter is too
general and need to be refined. A BOF is scheduled for the IETF
meeting and will provide an opportunity to refine the charter.
ACTION: Hobby, Estrada : Attend the NAS BOF and provide guidance in the
drafting of their charter.
Topics Held over Until the Next Meeting
5.1 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol (S.Crocker)
5.3 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
5.4 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
5.5 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker)
5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker)
5.7 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker)
5.8 OSI Integration or Multiprotocol Integration?
5.9 WG Ownership of Standards
5.10 EUnet Objection to MIME.
