IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING
January 4th, 1993
Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary
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.
[email protected].
ATTENDEES
---------
Borman, David / Cray Research
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / Bellcore
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
AGENDA
------
1) Administrivia
o Approval of the Minutes
- December 21st
o Teleconference Meeting Times
2) Protocol Actions
o PEM
o SMTP Extensions
o DS1 MIB
o DS3 MIB
3) Technical Management Issues
o IP Addressing Guidelines
o SNMP Security
o Policy Statements
4) RFC Editor Actions
o RIP (Wide Area Routing with RIP)
o Traceroute
5) Working Group Actions
o IP Security (ipsec)
o SIP (sip)
MINUTES
--------
1) Administrivia
o Minutes
The IESG had several comments on the Minutes of December 21st. These
minutes were held over for approval until the next teleconference.
o Teleconference Meeting Times
The IESG meetings have been rescheduled for 11:30 ET to ease
dinnertime inconvenience and facilitate more quality family time for
the growing families of IESG members in the ET+6 timezone. Because
many ET cafeterias are open only during the teleconference, this will
slightly ease grouchiness of the several ET participants. It is
understood that all ET-3 participants rise early and would welcome
stimulating breakfast conversation.
2) Protocol Actions
o PEM
The letter from RSA pledging to make licenses available to all on a
non-discriminatory basis was forwarded to the IESG. PEM is the first
protocol the IESG has been asked to standardize which a key
technology is subject to licensing. Further, the technology is
subject to restrictive export controls. Questions remain in the IESG
about how these issues will impact availability and utility of the
protocol.
ACTION: SCrocker -- Write text for the protocol action announcement
addressing the patent and export issues.
o SMTP Extensions
The SMTP Extensions Working Group has produced a revised version of
the protocol initially sent to the IESG. These changes were reviewed
by the IESG and approved. Comments on the informational transition
document were raised by Keld Simonsen. The IESG discussed these
comments which were earlier raised wrt to the MIME protocol and did
not feel they needed to be further discussed.
ACTION: Hobby -- Send a response to Keld Simonsen addressing his
comments on the ESMTP transitional document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a draft protocol action and ballot to the
IESG for approval.
o DS3 MIB and DS1 MIB
RFC 1232 and RFC 1233 contain a fundamental error: many objects are
encoded as counters that must be encoded as integers or gauges. The
magnitude of the change required is sufficient that virtually every
object changed. Corrected documentation was submitted to the IESG.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a Protocol Action and Ballot to the IESG for
approval.
3) Technical Management
o IP Addressing Guidelines
Discussion was opened with the authors of the IP addressing
guidelines about the IESG intention to make this document an
Informational document. The authors disagreed with this approach
preferring to use the approach used with the NSAP addressing
guidelines, Proposed Standard. The IESG discussed the document and
noted that the guidelines are clearly not protocols in the sense of
something that is implemented to be interoperable. The guidelines do
not improve interoperability, although they do increase efficiency,
but they are an important operational coordination issue.
IP addressing guidelines are a integral part of CIDR. It was
pointed out that CIDR itself is not a standards track protocol
although specific protocols needed to implement it are such as
BGP4.
It has become clear to the IESG that Proposed Standard is not the
right designation for these operational guidelines but a
document subseries for this class of documents has not yet been
created. A proposal for Statements of Policy (SOP) subseries similar
to the OG series the IAB had earlier discussed was suggested by the
authors via an Internet-Draft.
While proposed standard was not the approach favored by the IESG, it
was not able to address the full implications of making this document
informational.
ACTION: Gross -- Discuss with the IANA, the FEPG, IEPG, and the authors
of the IP Addressing Guidelines document the implications of making
document an Informational document.
o SNMP Security
There is a continuing technical disagreement in the SNMP Security
Working Group which does not seem to be reaching closure.
Similarities between this controversy and the SMTP Extensions
gridlock were noted and the Network Management Area Director
requested that the IESG serve as a moderator. The IESG briefly
discussed the situation and requested that the Security Area Director
and the Network Management Area Director investigate and report back
to the IESG.
ACTION: Davin and SCrocker -- Investigate the current disagreements in
the SNMP Security Working Group and report back to the IESG.
o Operational Guidelines
Detailed discussion on an Operational Guidelines (OG) subseries was
deferred until the next teleconference.
4) RFC Editor Actions
o Routing over Demand Circuits on Wide Area Networks - RIP.
This document was sent to the RFC Editor as Proposed Standard. It
was referred to the IESG for assignment to a Working Group. This has
not yet been done.
ACTION: Hinden -- Assign the Routing over Demand Circuits - RIP to a
IETF Working Group to be reviewed prior to submission as a Proposed
Standard.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to Jon Postel acknowledging receipt of
this document.
o Traceroute
The IESG has reviewed the Traceroute document submitted as a
Experimental Protocol. The IESG sent extensive technical comments
to the RFC editor. The IESG is willing to have this published as an
Experimental Protocol provided the title is changed to reduce
confusion with the current traceroute utility.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor expressing the IESG
feedback on the traceroute document.
5) Working Group Actions
o IP Security
No progress to report.
o SIP
The SIP Working Group charter was held up pending review of several
milestones which appeared over-aggressive. The delivery dates have
passed and the IESG refined the milestones for January.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the formation of the SIP Working Group.
APPENDIX -- Summary of Action Items
ACTION: SCrocker -- Write text for the protocol action announcement
addressing the patent and export issues.
ACTION: Hobby -- Send a response to Keld Simonsen addressing his
comments on the ESMTP transitional document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a draft protocol action and ballot to the
IESG for approval.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a Protocol Action and Ballot to the IESG for
approval.
ACTION: Gross -- Discuss with the IANA, the FEPG, IEPG, and the authors
of the IP Addressing Guidelines document the implications of making
document an Informational document.
ACTION: Davin and SCrocker -- Investigate the current disagreements in
the SNMP Security Working Group and report back to the IESG.
ACTION: Hinden -- Assign the Routing over Demand Circuits - RIP to a
IETF Working Group to be reviewed prior to submission as a Proposed
Standard.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to Jon Postel acknowledging receipt of
this document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor expressing the IESG
feedback on the traceroute document.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the formation of the SIP Working Group.
