This report contains IESG meeting notes, positions and action items.
These minutes were compiled by the IETF Secretariat which is supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NCR 8820945.
For more information please contact the IESG Secretary.
ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Davin, Chuck / Bellcore
IAB ATTENDEES
Braden, Robert / ISI
Cerf, Vinton / CNRI
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Huitema, Christian / INRIA
Kent/ Stephen / BBN
Lauch, Anthony / DEC
Leiner, Barry / NASA
Postel, Jon / ISI
Regrets
Braun, Hans-Werner / SDSC
Lynch, Daniel / Interop
AGENDA
------
1) Protocol Actions
o Telnet Environment Option
o Telnet Authentication Options
- SPX
- Kerberos V4
o String Representation of Distinguished Names
o Network Time Protocol
o Common OSI Management in the Internet (CMOT)
2) IETF Progress Report
3) IETF Re-organization
4) New IP Review
MINUTES
-------
1) Protocol Actions
The IESG reviewed the following protocol actions under the new and
evolving standards process continuing in the POSISED Working Group.
o Telnet Environment Option
The IESG reviewed the Telnet Environment option and approved it for
Proposed Standard. This option was previously sent to the IAB and
was sent back to Working Group for revision. The Working Group has
specified an initial set of Operating System independent variables
and provided a mechanism for session specific variables.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send an IESG approval for the Telnet
Authentication Option to the RFC Editor and the IETF.
The Telnet Working Group has several documents for telnet
Authentication. These documents are complete but are expected to be
obsolete shortly by a more comprehensive set of
authentication/encryption documents. The Working Group requested
Experimental status for the current set. In the absence of a
Prototype designation, the IESG agreed and approved the documents
for Experimental status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Request that the RFC Editor publish the Telnet
Authentication documents as Experimental Protocols.
o String Representation of Distinguished Names
The IESG approved the string representation of distinguished names
document as a Proposed Standard. This document along with the User
Friendly Naming document earlier approved as experimental by the
IESG was previously submitted to the IAB as a Proposed Standard.
This document is narrower in scope and represents one of
several possible human-readable representations suitable for email
or business card exchange. Additional comments were received by
Steve Kent but the IESG left the decision on whether to incorporate
these changes to the current version or the Draft Standard version
up to the author.
ACTION: After the author either makes additional edits or indicates
that current document is complete, send an IESG Approval for the String
Representation of Distinguished Name document to the RFC Editor and the
IETF.
o Network Time Protocol
After significant discussion, the IESG concluded that there was
inadequate information to elevate the Network Time Protocol to Draft
Standard. While there are two implementations for differing
platforms, it is not clear that it is possible to implement an
independent interoperable implementation from RFC1113. NTP has not
been subject to a Working Group review but was reviewed by an
independent group of IETF experts before going to Proposed
Standard. The IESG will consult again with this group and if
necessary form a Working Group.
ACTION: Hobby -- Consult with the original panel of reviewers of the
NTP specification and determine if there is adequate experience to
elevate NTP to Draft Standard.
o Common OSI Management in the Internet (CMOT)
The CMOT protocol has been a Proposed Standard for two years and
there is no indication that there is, or will be in the near term,
the necessary level of implementation or experience to elevate
the protocol to Draft Standard. The IESG approved moving CMOT off
the standards track to Historic.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the IETF that the IESG has moved CMOT off
the standards track.
2) IETF Progress Report
Several protocols which were in need of revision or were long
expected to be submitted to the IESG were completed at the
Washington IETF Meeting.
o SMTP Extensions
The impasse on the documentation style and all technical issues were
resolved. New documents should be submitted to the Internet Drafts
and IESG shortly.
o IDENT
The IDENT specification with character set changes recommended by
the IESG was reviewed and accepted by the Working Group.
o Dynamic Host Configuration
The specifications for the protocol and options were reviewed and
accepted by the Working Group.
o Privacy Enhanced Mail
PEM is now finished and will be submitted to the IESG within a
week. Integration with MIME has begun and this work is intended to
progress independently.
3) IETF Re-Organization
The IESG discussed specific points of the POISED proposal for
re-organization of the IETF/IESG/IAB relationship.
o IESG Selection.
The proposal for selection of IESG members was a discussed. Two
specific concerns were raised, attention to the cooperative spirit of
the IESG in selection new members and continuity in the technical
management. The IESG affirmed the proposals for the nomination
committee to seek guidance from the IESG in selecting new members.
Further, the IESG decided that IESG positions should be put up for
re-affirmation, not individual members. This is especially
important in large area with co-area directors. It was felt that
only one of the Directors should be put up for re-affirmation at a
time.
The IESG periodically reviews its operations and re-organizes areas
to reflect new priorities and workloads. The integration of OSI
Working Groups into other IESG Areas is one such re-organization.
It was agreed that the IESG should remain free to pursue such
re-organization with the understanding that any new IESG positions
will be subject to the normal nomination process.
Five of the six members needed to be re-affirmed volunteered, Dave
Piscitello, Dave Crocker, Dave Borman, Stev Knowles, and Phill
Gross.
o IESG Workload
The IESG and IAB agreed to begin operating under the current
proposal for IESG final approval of standards. This will entail a
greater workload on the IESG with no immediate increase in either
IESG membership or secretariat support. The formation of
directorates, bodies of experts in a specific area who can aid the
Area Director in the review of protocols and mentoring of Working
Groups are now more critical. IESG meetings will need to become
more focused on protocol standardization and in-depth review of
architectural issues. The IESG discussed off-loading the IETF
chairman by assigning responsibility for meeting planning, and the
technical presentation program to the Executive Director. To
accomplish this, the IESG discussed the creation of a "facilitator"
a non-technical participant who can manage the agenda and steer the
group toward consensus. Steve Coya as the Executive Director of the
IETF was named as the obvious
choice.
o Process Changes
The Poised proposal will result in many changes. Several of these
were accepted by the IESG and IAB for immediate implementation.
- The IESG will now make decisions on standards track protocols
starting immediately. Protocols on the IAB's plate will continue
through the previous process.
- RFC 1310 will be updated. Steve Coya was assigned the task of
serving as editor for the IESG update of this document.
ACTION: Coya, Dcrocker -- Revise RFC 1310 to reflect the changes in the
IESG/IAB structure. It is hoped that a solid cut can be made by the
December 10th ISOC Trustees meeting.
- The IESG, i.e., Steve Coya, now has responsibility for reporting
standardization progress in the Internet Monthly Report and the
Internet Society News.
- Area Directors need explicit guidelines for Working Group Chairman
and Area Directorates. A revised Working Group guidelines incorporating
the information from Erik Huizer's OSI area guidelines will be produced.
ACTION: Huizer -- Revise the Guidelines to Working Group chairman to
offer more explicit guidance and to define the role of the IESG Area
Director in terms of Working Group management.
- The IESG needs to write a new charter for itself under the IAB.
The IAB needs to revise its charter to reflect new duties.
o Outstanding Concerns
With the IAB, the IESG took an round-robin survey to identify the
outstanding areas of concern with the Poised proposal. The
following concerns were identified.
The professionalism of the IAB/IESG is valuable and must be
protected. The nominating committed must be able to work in
confidence in considering personnel. Fear of recall petitions may
make members reluctant to tackle hard problems.
IESG members serve as technical members but are responsible for
management of the IETF work and need to be selected with an eye to
both roles.
The IESG relies upon a close collegial relationship for coordinating
technical work and the nominating committee needs the input of
existing members to determine if new members can work within the
IESG. Further, the replacement of 1/2 of the IESG per vote must be
structured in such a way that the area continuity can be maintained,
likely by placing only one of co-area directors up for re-nomination
per period.
IESG workload will increase. In the short term progress is likely
to get slower, not faster.
The role of the IAB as appeals board needs to be better defined. The
process framework needs to be legally defensible but not be
over-defined to the point of OSI-fication.
4) New IP Review
At this IETF meeting the several proposals for the next IP were
presented and discussed. The field of choices appears to have
narrowed by attrition to two, CLNP and SIP/IPAE. There were many
viewpoints explored on the wisdom of choosing a single choice with
the a general consensus that it is better for the IESG/IAB to lead
towards a choice by specifying increasingly higher hurdles and
setting firm criteria for the proposals than to pick a single
protocol.
This view towards community decision making results from an
understanding that any meaningful decision by the IAB/IESG would
have to be made early, before a substantial investment in
implementation, and hence before firm experience is gathered.
Experience and the pressure of competition will result in stronger
proposals which reflect implementation and transition experience.
Strong dissenters from this view charge that the costs of parallel
tracks are too great and that a decision, even if it is not the best
of the contenders will better conserve resources for faster
deployment.
The IESG discussed and came to the conclusion that a decision can be
made, but only if there is community consensus that a decision needs
to be made.
ACTION: Knowles, Almquist -- Write a draft statement to be sent to the
IETF mailing list inquiring about the desire to make a decision on the
next IP.
Appendix -- Action Items
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send an IESG approval for the Telnet
Authentication Option to the RFC Editor and the IETF.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Request that the RFC Editor publish the Telnet
Authentication documents as Experimental Protocols.
ACTION: After the author either makes additional edits or indicates
that current document is complete, send an IESG Approval for the String
Representation of Distinguished Name document to the RFC Editor and the
IETF.
ACTION: Hobby -- Consult with the original panel of reviewers of the
NTP specification and determine if there is adequate experience to
elevate NTP to Draft Standard.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the IETF that the IESG has moved CMOT off
the standards track.
ACTION: Coya, Dcrocker -- Revise RFC 1310 to reflect the changes in the
IESG/IAB structure. It is hoped that a solid cut can be made by the
December 10th ISOC Trustees meeting.
ACTION: Knowles, Almquist -- Write a draft statement to be sent to the
IETF mailing list inquiring about the desire to make a decision on the
next IP.
ACTION: Huizer -- Revise the Guidelines to Working Group chairman to
offer more explicit guidance and to define the role of the IESG Area
Director in terms of Working Group management.
