Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information.
ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
AGENDA
------
1. Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
1.2.1 Minutes of March 26
1.2.2 Minutes of April 27th
1.2.3 Minutes of May 4th
1.2.4 Minutes of May 11th
1.3 Next Meeting
5.0 Technical Management Issues
5.1 IESG Recommendation on ROAD work
5.2 IP Address Assignment Policies
6.0 Working Group Actions
6.1 OSI General
MINUTES
-------
1. Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
The attendance at this Thursday Teleconference was a bit low.
Because of missing IESG members, some of the agenda was skipped.
There was discussion the IESG meeting dates and agreement was reached
to resume Monday meetings as soon as possible.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the March 26th, April 27th, and May 4th teleconference
were approved.
1.3 Next Meeting
The IESG scheduled an conference for the next day, Friday May 29th
from 12-2 EDT to discuss the ROAD recommendation authored by Philip
Almquist. The previously scheduled meeting for Thursday June 4th
will remain.
2.0 Action Items
The action items were not reviewed at this meeting.
3.0 Protocol Actions
The review of expired protocols resulted in a full list of protocol
actions.
3.1 PPP Authentication
The IAB had a few questions about the PPP Authentication Protocols.
Without the attendance of Steve Crocker, discussion was deferred.
3.2 SNMP Security
There is continued discussion on the SNMP Security documents. There
has been some negative publicity concerning the lengthy delays
getting these documents published.
ACTION: Gross -- Send a note to the IAB expressing IESG concern about
delays in approving the PPP Authentication and Secure SNMP protocols.
3.3 BGP Next Hop SNPA Attribute.
The IAB has a few comments on specific aspects of this new BGP
attribute. In reviewing these questions, it is becoming apparent
that this extension to BGP does not have a strong constituency. It
was reviewed by the BGP and IPLPDN working group, but the author as
expressed the opinion that this protocol extension may already be
OBE, and has no objections to removing it from the standards
process. The chair of the IESG expressed grave concern that the IESG
passed a protocol to the IAB that was not supported by the IETF.
ACTION: Hinden, Piscitello -- Investigate the constituency and seek
clarification of the process by which the BGP attribute was sent to the
IESG for standards consideration.
3.4 SUPDUP
The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
call proposing to move SUPDUP to Historic Standard Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move SUPDUP,
RFC 734, to Historical Standard Status.
3.5 CLNP PING
The responses to the IESG last call on the CLNP PING protocol were
not generally favorable. The situation with the ISO work on a
similar protocol is not clear. The Area Director proposed deferring
action on this protocol for a couple of months to get a better
reading on other standardization activities.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the IETF suggesting that the IESG
defer action on advancing RFC 1139, CLNP "Ping" until the prospects for
the pending ISO consideration of this protocol can be better assessed.
3.6 Hostname Protocol
The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
call proposing to move the Hostname Protocol to Historic Standard Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the Hostname Protocol, RFC 953 to Historical Standard Status.
3.7 Trivial FTP Protocol
TFTP is a solid part of the Internet architecture. It is widely
implemented and deployed. No technical objections to the protocol
were sent in response to the last call.
Karen Solins would like the authorship of the draft to include Noel
as an editor.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After resolving the questions of authorship of the
TFTP document, send a recommendation to the IAB to elevate TFTP to
Standard Status.
3.8 PCMAIL
Many comments were received by the IESG in response to the last
call. There was significant response indicating that the protocol
was in active use. PCMAIL is clearly not a dead protocol, but it has
failed to gain wider acceptance over the past two years.
Unfortunately, it appears that PCMAIL is being deployed and supported
by only a single company. PCMAIL does not appear to have the
multiple interoperable implementations required for Draft Standard
Stage.
The IESG discussed the general question of whether protocols in
current use should be designated as Historic. In the case of PCMAIL,
the IESG felt that the status of "Informational Protocol" was clearly
a more appropriate status reflecting the pseudo-proprietary nature of
the protocol.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Write a draft recommendation to the IAB moving
PCMAIL to Informational. Send this note to the IESG for review.
ACTION: Hobby -- Contact the relevant people at FTP Software and make
the case that PCMAIL is not ready for Draft Standard.
3.9 NFILE
The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
call proposing to move NFILE to Historic Standard Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move NFILE,
RFC 1037, to Historical Standard Status.
3.10 Simple File Transfer Protocol
The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
call proposing to move the SFTP Protocol to Historic Standard
Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the SFTP
Protocol, RFC 913, to Historical Standard Status.
3.11 "ISO" Transport on the TCP
Several comments were received during the last call period suggesting
editorial changes to the specifications. The title of the protocol,
"ISO Transport on the TCP" was felt to be mis-representative. The
specification only specifies Connection oriented transport, not
connectionless. Further, use of ISO to identify OSI protocols is not
currently considered preferable
ACTION: Piscitello -- Contact Marshall Rose and request an editorial
pass be made over the document before it is promoted to Standard.
3.12 WHOIS
There was a single negative comment received in response to the last
call. The assertion was that whois documents a single service from a
single provider which has little utility over merely registering the
port. The IESG discussed, and agreed that WHOIS servers are much
more widely deployed that commonly believed, and that the interface
is used to various information systems including the X.500 pilot
project.
ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Send a note responding to the WHOIS objection.
In the note, make a solicitation for more information on existing servers.
WHOIS is one of the older Internet Protocols. As such the
documentation is likely to be limited and may have assumptions in it
which are no longer valid.
ACTION: Hobby -- Review the WHOIS Specification for accuracy and
clarity. If it requires modifications, initiate work on a new document
reflecting current practice.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB
elevating WHOIS to Standard Status after outstanding questions about
accuracy are resolved.
WHOIS is one of the commonly use Internet directory services. The
"System" of whois servers is not well documented, and is therefore
less useful than it could be. Emerging technologies such as that
used by World Wide Web (WWW) and Archie attempt to aggregate
information from servers of this sort but do it in an ad-hoc manner.
The IESG briefly discussed work that could be initiated in the IETF
to help, and agreed to discuss that at a future time.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Add a discussion of WHOIS-like information
services to a future IESG Agenda.
3.13 Routing Information Protocol
The IESG received mixed comments on the elevation of RIP to
Standard. There was a concern that elevating RIP to Standard will
send a mixed signal to the community. RIP is an old-style routing
protocols which neither fully supports current routing architecture,
but does not support future routing either.
The IESG discussed these objections and agreed that a mixed signal
could be given. RIP is widely deployed and does meet the
requirements for a Standard Protocol. RIP is the most widely used
routing protocol. The IESG agreed to recommend RIP to Standard with a
strong statement that this is part of the Grandfathering process and
does not reflect a change in routing policy.
Vaudreuil -- Draft the recommendation to the IAB elevating RIP to Full
Standard. Include in the note the reasons the IESG is advocating this
action.
3.14 BGP-OSPF Interactions.
The IESG did not discuss this document.
4.0 Old Protocols Needing Review
4.1 BootP and Extensions
The IESG requires more information to evaluate BootP in light of the
work continuing in the DHC working group, which should be wrapped up
soon.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Invite Ralph Droms to participate in an upcoming
IESG teleconference to discuss BootP and the timetable for DHC
completion.
4.2 Header Compression
There has been no response from Van Jacobsen to queries about the
accuracy of the header compression document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a last Call for VJ Header Compression to the
IETF list for Draft Standard. Explicitly solicit information on known
problems.
4.3 NFS
It is clear that NFS is not fully implementable from the NFS RFCs.
The RFC are not incorrect, and they reflect the current version of
NFS, but are not complete and are missing critical information. If
they were to progress they need to be expanded and clarified. More
complete specifications are available from XOpen. The IESG has
received no word from SUN on their intention to continue down the
IETF standard process. If SUN is not interested in pursuing
standardization, the IESG agreed that Historical is the likely state
for these documents. Hinden and Borman will continue their action to
get a signal of intention from SUN.
4.4 RPC
RPC was not discussed independently of NFS but is subject to the same
consideration.
4.5 Resource Location
Resource Location was not discussed.
5.0 Technical Management Issues
5.1 Review of IESG Recommendation on ROAD Work
The IESG was unable to discuss the ROAD recommendation due to lack of
time. A follow on teleconference was schedule for the next day, May
29.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Set up a teleconference for May 29th to discuss
ROAD Issues.
6.0 Working Group actions.
6.1 OSI General
Discussion on disbanding the OSI General Working group was not held.
