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 / SUN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
IAB Guests
-----------
Hans Werner Braun / SDSC
Lyman Chapin /BBN
Jon Postel / ISI
Agenda
1. Planing for IETF Growth
1.1 Protocol Quality Control
1.2 Area Director Work Load
1.3 Secretariat Support
1.4 Working Group Management
2. Interaction with the Coalition for Network Information (CNI)
3. Internationalization
4. Ownership of Standards
5. Common Services
1.1 RPC
1.2 International Character Sets
6. Road Group Follow-up
1.1 Class B and C Net Number Assignment Policies
1.2 New Working Group Formation.
Minutes
-------
1. Planning for IETF Growth
The IETF is facing a continuing period of growth. With this growth
an increase of management attention is needed to insure consistent
high quality, and to avoid dropping important items.
1.1 Protocol Quality Control
The number of protocols that the IETF is creating is rising rapidly.
The IESG is responsible for reviewing each of these protocols and
insuring that they meet a standard of quality. To better support
the IESG's increasing workload, better tracking and reporting must
be done by the Secretariat.
ACTION: Coya -- Document the IESG standards process identifying the
various states a document may be in. Incorporate this information into
the IETF tracking system. Status information should be made available
in IETF directories and included in the IMR.
1.2 Area Director Work Load
The IESG members are volunteers. With the increase in the number of
Working Groups, and the increased activity across the IETF, the work
load on Area Directors is high. It is currently difficult for an
Area Director to track the progress of work in his/her area. The
IETF Secretariat maintains a database of current status, but there
is little reporting of activities.
Many members were unclear about what their responsibilities are to
review work in other IETF Areas. Some felt responsible only for
their area while others felt responsible for all IESG work. After
discussion, the IESG agreed that the primary responsibility is for
the AD's respective area, with a secondary responsibility to aid in
the review of work in other areas where needed.
It was noted that the IESG spends a large amount of time working on
defining the process. The procedures are created on an as needed
basis anytime a special case arises. It was suggested that a
"procedures" retreat be called to document at once the procedures of
the IESG, but no immediate plans were made. A strong first step
would be to document the current understanding of the process.
ACTION: Hobby, Stockman, Coya, Dave Crocker, and Huizer -- Write the
current IESG Operational procedures into the IETF Handbook.
1.3 Secretariat Support
The IESG discussed the tracking requirements, and agreed that
reporting current status needs to be improved. The Area Directors
agreed that a notification of expired goals and milestones report,
and a protocol action report would be helpful. There is a sense that
the IETF Secretariat is short of resources for aiding the IESG. A
comprehensive examination of the secretariat operation was not
possible during this meeting, however, there was a desire for a
fuller understanding of the actual work done in the secretariat.
ACTION: Coya -- Identify those areas where work in unable to be
completed due to lack of resources.
1.4 Working Group Management
One aspect of IETF growth that the IESG felt it could begin to
control is the proliferation of Working Groups. Working Groups are
forming at a rate much higher that their rate of conclusion. While
these new Working Groups have good merit, there was a sense that
there should be a higher hurdle to formation. The current hurdle to
formation is already larger that it has been traditionally. The
charters are now reviewed by the IESG and IAB in addition to the
review of the Area Director prior to chartering. Groups interested
in forming a Working Group are encouraged to hold a BOF session at
the IETF Plenary sessions to demonstrate community interest in the
topic.
Working Group charters are only recently being written in such a
manner that purpose of the group is specific, and the goals and
milestones can be tracked. This has led to the creeping, ever
expanding working group charter. Better management of specific
groups is needed.
The number of BOF's are also increasing at IETF meetings in addition
to the number of Working Groups. By raising the hurdle for working
group formation, the IESG has encouraged BOF sessions. Several
groups have opted to meet repeatedly as BOF's rather than charter as
Working Groups. The IESG is concerned by this practice and
discussed, but did not adopt a specific restriction that a group may
meet only once at IETF as a BOF.
One aspect to the increasing number of working group sessions is the
growing attendance at IETF meetings. Working Groups are
increasingly spending time educating the newcomer in both the
procedures and the technical content of a group. While other formal
standards bodies have specific rules to deal with newcomers, the
IETF has relied upon strong chairman to insure the group makes
progress. The ability to control the meeting is affected by the
understanding for the rules and guidelines. These are automatically
being sent to all new IETF Working Group Chairmen.
2. Internationalization
The IESG discussed the need for closer interaction with non-US
attendees. The goal of an European meetings was greeted by all with
approval. The current logistical question is one of funding.
Attending European meetings are significantly more expensive for US
attendees that the same meeting in the US.
The IESG discussed the perceived requirement that IETF working
groups meet at least once at an IETF plenary session. This is
encouraged to give a working group the broadest exposure within the
IETF, however, this practice, especially for OSI Integration groups
tends to have the appearance of "Paying Homage to Caesar". Many (if
not most) OSI experts are European, and most are unable to travel
out of country. The IESG affirmed the policy that Working Groups,
while encouraged to meet at IETF plenaries, are not required to do
so.
Erik Huizer briefed the IESG on the current reorganization of the
RARE technical bodies. Rare appears to be talking on a structure
roughly analogous to the IETF/IESG/IAB structure, with the analogue
for IETF Areas, each for specific applications. The current Working
Groups, analogous to IETF areas, are File Transfer, Directory Users
Services and Support, Connection Oriented/Connectionless
Interworking, VTAM and X-Windows over OSI, ATM/ High Speed
Networking, and Security and Network Management.
ACTION: Huizer -- Prepare a preliminary outline of a report on
internationalization to serve as a starting point to help the IESG
prepare such a report for the IAB on.
3. Proposal for Joint X.500 CNI Work
The Coalition for Network Information has asked the IESG via Joyce
Reynolds, to consider working together to develop X.500 applications
and standards such as WAIS. After discussing the proposal, the IESG
agreed that coordination is a good goal, but that the IETF did not
have the resources to designate a specific liaison person. CNI is
welcome to attend IETF meetings and participate in the relevant
X.500 Working Groups.
4. Ownership of Standards
The IAB and IESG have been engaged in discussions on the proper
"home" for protocols in the standards process. The IESG has
traditionally disbanded working groups after the publication of the
Proposed Standard, leaving the responsibility for evolving the
protocol to the IESG or the IETF as a whole. This practice has come
under criticism in the context of protocols which originate outside
the IETF and have no originating working group. Several advantages
can be gained by continuing a working groups existence indefinitely,
including providing a forum for implementors to exchange
experiences, and to assume responsibility for the progression
through the standards track.
There was a sense that the act of forming an IETF working group
requires significant scarce resources that may be better utilized.
Recognizing that IETF review need to be proportional to community
interest, it was unwilling to create a new policy that all standards
must originate from an IETF working group.
