IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING
January 25th, 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
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Davin, Chuck / Bellcore
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
MINUTES
-------
Administrivia
o Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the January 4th and January 11th IESG Teleconferences
were approved.
o Next Meeting
The next IESG teleconference was scheduled for February 1st, 11:30 ET.
Protocol Actions
o PEM
The IESG approved PEM for Proposed Standard status. The notification
was reviewed and approved with additions from Bob Hinden to clarify
the patent situation and meet the requirements of RFC-1310 and minor
revisions from Steve Crocker. Hinden proposed wording to be added
to each of the protocol documents to call attention to the patents
referenced. The IESG agreed this was a good idea and that it should
be done by the RFC Editor. Discussion on the generic issue is
recorded under "technical management".
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After the changes are made to the PEM
notification, send it to the RFC Editor and the IETF list.
o SMTP Extensions
The SMTP Extensions document is being reviewed by the Area
Director. New versions reflecting changes resulting from the review
are expected.
o String Representation
New documents are still expected from Steve Hardcastle-Kille.
o Dynamic Host Configuration
Review of the DHC documents by the Area Directors has resulted in a
significant list of technical and editorial changes. New documents
are expected in the next week or so.
A new version of the BootP options was published as an RFC by the
IANA. BootP and DHC use the same option number space and the new
IANA document contains option numbers which were also assigned in an
incompatible manner in the DHC options document. The revised
documents from the DHC Working Group are expected to be coordinated
with the IANA.
ACTION: Almquist -- Insure that the next version of the DHC options
document and the IANA registered BootP options are compatible.
Security has been addressed in some of the DHC documents. There
does not appear to have been a comprehensive review of the security
aspects of this protocol and Steve Crocker was tasked to conduct a
review resulting in new security considerations section.
ACTION: SCrocker -- Conduct a review of the DHC protocols for security
related issues.
Technical Management Issues
o Patent considerations in Standards Track Documents
The PEM documents break new ground wrt patents. The suggestion was
made and accepted by the IESG that standards track documents
referencing patents indicate such in the document. It is expected
that the next version of RFC 1310 will contain sample text for this
section.
POSITION: Standards Track specifications should include a special
section to indicate patent dependence or known legal infringements.
o IP Addressing Guidelines
A single topic meeting was held to clarify the IP addressing
guidelines. The conclusion that CIDR was an architectural plan with
several parts, some of which are standards track and some of which
are informational, was reviewed and endorsed by the IESG. The action
plan outlined in the minutes of that meeting was approved
o SNMP Security Issues
Security aspects of SNMP involves fundamental aspects of the SNMPV2
protocol, especially the naming structure. Use of parties for
security affects the application of proxy agents which is
fundamental to the ability of SNMP to scale. There are proposals to
separate security from SNMPv2, but it is not clear that a separation
will help resolve the issues. The IESG discussed a special
teleconference for this topic but did not reach closure.
RFC Editor Actions
o SNMP over Various Transports
Specific text in the set of three documents specifying transport
mappings for SNMP over non-udp transport was called into question
after the IESG approved them for publication. The text in question
refers to the use of security with SNMP, a topic under continuing
discussion. The IESG decided that the SNMP over Foo documents
should be published with the understanding that, although the
documents specify identifiers for SNMP transport domains that may be
needed when SNMP security mechanisms are in use, the documents are
equally applicable whether or not SNMP security mechanisms are
present.
Further, the documents themselves are silent on the question of what
versions of the SNMP should be supported by standardized security
mechanisms, and are therefore not inconsistent with any emerging
community consensus on this question.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor indicating that the
SNMP over Various Transport documents should be published with suggested
editorial changes to reduce confusion with the current SNMP Security work.
o Wide Area Routing with RIP
The RFC Editor has sent the IESG a document submitted to him for
Proposed Standard. The IESG accepted this proposal as a work item
and Hinden took an action to review the document.
ACTION: Hinden -- Review the Wide Area Routing with RIP and determine
an appropriate IETF forum for consideration of this proposal.
o FTP/FTAM Gateway
The RFC Editor has requested clarification from the IESG on two
points before publication, the standardization of a gateway document
and the assumption of POSIX filenames in the protocol.
The IESG agreed that gateway mappings between protocol stacks where
information loss is possible is subject to standardization. This is
consistent with the earlier action to standardize RFC822/RFC821 to
X.400 mappings. The use of POSIX filename conventions will be
re-considered before progression to Draft Standard. Any problems
resulting from the use of POSIX filename conventions will uncovered
in the process of implementation and operational testing.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG understanding on the issues
raised with the FTP/FTAM gateway to the RFC Editor.
Appendix -- Summary of Action Items
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After the changes are made to the PEM
notification, send it to the RFC Editor and the IETF list.
ACTION: Almquist -- Insure that the next version of the DHC options
document and the IANA registered BootP options are compatible.
ACTION: SCrocker -- Conduct a review of the DHC protocols for security
related issues.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor indicating that the
SNMP over Various Transport documents should be published with only
small editorial changes to reduce confusion with the current SNMP
Security work.
ACTION: Hinden -- Review the Wide Area Routing with RIP and determine
an appropriate IETF forum for consideration of this proposal.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG understanding on the issues
raised with the FTP/FTAM gateway to the RFC Editor.
Appendix -- Minutes from the IP Addressing Teleconference
Minutes recorded by Phill Gross
Today we held a conference call to discuss the status of the IP
guidelines document by Yakov and Tony Li. Bernard Stockman, Jon
Postel, Joyce Reynolds, Phill Gross, Bob Hinden, Peter Ford, Tony Li,
and Yakov Rekhter were on the call.
In a startling display of ontime and underbudget project management (we
finished by 12:50 EST!), we came to agreement on the following points
and proposed approach:
- The R/L IP guidelines document is really an architecture
statement. With a title change and some minor
wordsmithing/re-casting, those assembled on the call would be
comfortable with publishing the (former) "guidelines" document as an
architecture statement.
- We felt that all the CIDR-related documents should be pulled
together and published as an RFC set. Taken together,these
documents would form the CIDR plan.
- We felt there needed to be an overall recommendation from the IESG
regarding CIDR. This recommendation would be published as an
Applicability Statement, and would reference all the relevant
documents in the set.
Therefore, we would like to see the following document set published:
Title Status Comments
---------------------------- ------ -------------------------------
1. "IESG Recommendation for CIDR PS This would be an AS. It will
and Address Allocation" describe how all the documents
fit together, especially docs
4. and 5. Bob Hinden and Phill
Gross took the action for this.
2. "Supernetting: An Address PS This would be the CIDR specification.
Aggregation Strategy" Tony took the action to update and
revamp this document accordingly.
This is currently published as
RFC 1338.
3. "Guidelines for IP Address PS This would be the CIDR architecture.
Allocation" Yakov took the action to incorporate
the appropriate changes to re-cast
it (including a title change). This
is currently available as an I-D.
4. "Guidelines for Management Info This would be the implementation
of the IP Address Space" plan for CIDR address assignment.
This is currently published as
RFC 1366. We may not need to
republish it.
5. "The Schedule" Info Claudio (for the FEPG) published
a US-centric schedule for
implementing RFC 1366. As part of
this document set, we would like
to see a schedule focused on
the whole Internet. We hope to
get Claudio's and the FEPG's help
for this.
Actions:
- Bob/Phill -- Write the IESG recommendation; track overall progress
- Tony -- Update the Supernetting document
- Yakov -- Keep doing the Right Thing on the "Guidelines" document
- Peter -- Tell Elise and Claudio to call Phill
- Phill -- Set up follow-up phoneconf regarding the schedule
Goal: publish all new documents as I-Ds by Feb 15th. Issue Last Call
by March 1.
