Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
Report from the IESG Teleconference
24 June 1993
Recorded by: John Stewart, 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
---------
Bradner, Scott / Harvard
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Crocker, Dave / SGI
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Gross, Philip / ANS
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Klensin, John / UNU
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Mankin, Allison / Locus
Rose, Marshall / DBC
Stewart, John / CNRI
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
IAB Liaison
Christian Huitema / INRIA
Yakov Rekhter / IBM
Regrets
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Minutes
-------
1. Administrative Issues
o Roll Call
o Revisions to the Agenda
o Approval of the Minutes
- The minutes of the 13 May, 27 May, and 10 June
IESG teleconferences were approved.
o Scott Bradner will not be in Amsterdam
o The IESG/IAB lunch in Amsterdam will be Wednesday
14 July; probably in the RAI for convenience.
2. Protocol Actions
o The IESG approved the elevation of the MIME Internet-
Drafts ("MIME Part 1" and "MIME Part 2") to the status
of Draft Standard.
o The IESG approved the MIME-MHS Internet-Drafts ("Mapping
between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies," "Equivalences
between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies," and
"HARPOON: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88
to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the
messages") for the status of Proposed Standard.
o The IESG approved the "Content-MD5 Header" Internet-Draft
for the status of Proposed Standard.
o The IESG approved the Common Authentication Technology
Internet-Draft ("Generic Security Service Application
Program Interface," "The Kerberos Network Authentication
Service (V5)," and "Generic Security Service API:
C-bindings") for the status of Proposed Standard.
3. Working Group Actions
o Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (mmusic) was
approved as a working group under the Transport Area.
o Inter-Domain Multicast Routing (idmr) was approved as a
working group under the Routing Area.
4. Working Group Informational Documents
o Assertion of C=US; A=IMX <info>
Erik Huizer said that the technical quality of the
document is good, but there is a question about whether
documents whose scope is limited to one nation are in
the purview of the IESG/IETF. After some discussion,
he said that he thinks it would be acceptable to
approve this document for Experimental status, but that
the IESG still needs to decide on a general policy for
how to deal with documents of significance to a single
nation. One person noted that this could be thought of
analogous to NTP's current status; specifically,
something which is of good technical quality, but is
not appropriate or of interest to the entire IETF. It
was also noted that if approving this document resulted
in interoperability across U.S. borders, then perhaps
it is not "just" pertinent to one nation.
A question was brought up as to why the Internet needs
a node so high up in the naming tree; a comment was
also made that the ADMD=" " convention might break some
current implementations. Naming in this context
involves policy issues which are decided by an ANSI /
U.S. State Department collaboration.
ACTION (Klensin, Chapin): Edit the document for any particular
content and/or terminology which may be expected by the ANSI /
U.S. State Department collaboration.
o Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay <info>
No action to report.
o Op Reqs for X.400 Mngmnt Domains in GO-MHS <info>
Erik Huizer has not yet read the document. He will ask
John Klensin to look at it.
5. Management Issues
o HP's complaint about TELNET Environment Option
The crux of this problem is that the way the working group
documented the environment option was inadvertently
different than the reference implementation; the working
group's solution to the inconsistency was to change the
specification to match the implementation. This upset
Hewlett-Packard because they coded to the RFC. It was
noted that this is a clash of cultures resulting from the
Internet's growth and attention by more parties. The way
the IESG can address this issue in general is by setting
policies for acceptable types of changes to go from
Proposed to Draft and from Draft to Standard. For this
specific case, the consensus was to allow the working
group to make the change, but to do so in recycling the
RFC back to Proposed (i.e., rather than going from
Proposed to Draft Standard). Also, the working group will
have to address any interoperability problems before moving
up to Draft. As a general procedural matter, it was agreed
that all organizations doing business with the IESG should
do so via electronic mail.
ACTION (Coya, Stewart): Draft a statement on acceptable types of
changes that can happen when going from Proposed to Draft and
from Draft to Standard.
ACTION (Huizer, Klensin): Inform the telnet working group of the
IESG's discussion, and supply them with a revised version of the
document to be drafted by Coya and Stewart. This action should
be taken before the IESG responds to Hewlett-Package.
ACTION (Gross): Respond to Hewlett-Packard's complaint after the
document to be drafted by Coya and Stewart is completed, and
after the telnet working group has been told of the IESG
discussion.
o IP over ARCNET <rfc1201> from Historic to Draft
Don Provan of Novell responded late to the Last Call
with information to the effect that there were as many
as five implementations of RFC1201. This issue will
be tabled until the members of the IESG have a chance
to see Provan's message.
ACTION (Stewart): Send Don Provan's message to the IESG mailing
list.
o ATM Forum
Allison Mankin reported that the June 21-23 ATM Forum
meeting voted to object to the proposed IETF vc-routing
charter of producing a routing protocol specification for
ATM. This vote was consonant with the view of the ATM
Forum's technical committee chair, Glenn Estes, who had
previously talked with her about his disagreement with
Fred Sammartino's (the President of ATM Forum's) position
on vc-routing. As comment on the vote about IETF,
Estes has stated that IETF members are welcome to participate
in developing the standard in the ATM Forum, through their
companies' Forum memberships. Standards contributions
can only be received from Forum members. Further discussion
on this will wait until Bob Hinden is able to participate.
Christian Huitema reported that there was a similar discussion
in an IAB teleconference recently.
ACTION (Gross): Communicate the IESG's discussion on the IETF/ATM
Forum issue to the IAB.
ACTION (Mankin, Gross, Hinden): Talk privately about the IETF/ATM
Forum issue, and then contact the vc-routing proposed working group
chairs.
o Router Requirements Working Group
There has been no luck in contacting Phill Almquist, the
current chair of Router Requirements, to try and find the
working group's status.
ACTION (Knowles): Continue to try to contact Almquist.
ACTION (Gross, Rose, Knowles): Try to find new chair(s) and four
editors.
o BBN's request for ST-II demo
Erik Huizer was concerned about BBN's last minute request
and logistically complex request to do an ST-II demo.
o Second IESG Liaison to the IAB
During the period of the POISED activities, it was decided
that the IESG and IAB should each exchange 2 representatives
to participate on the other body. This would include the
respective chairs and one other member.
During these discussions, Bob Hinden was nominated, and
tentatively agreed to serve, as the second IESG representative
on the IAB. During this call, the IESG agreed to extend the
invitation to Bob.
During the discussion, it was noted that the IAB decided that
the IETF chair would have an ex-officio vote on IAB matters, but
the other IESG representative would not. There was a brief
related discussion about whether the IAB should vote, or even
participate, on the IESG. Because the IAB plays a part in
appeals, some felt that this gave the IAB two votes. There was
not enough of a discussion to come to consensus.
ACTION (Gross): Talk to Bob Hinden about being the second IESG
liaison to the IAB. (Note: Gross has since spoken to Hinden,
and Hinden has agreed to serve.)
o IETF Charter
Phill Gross is currently working on it.
ACTION (Gross): Present draft of the IETF Charter by Amsterdam.
6. RFC Editor Actions
o Simple Paging Protocol
There was consensus that work of this nature should be the
result of an IETF working group. Some felt that there
were simpler ways to achieve the author's goal and that
another protocol was not necessary. An extension will be
requested from the RFC Editor so that the IESG can contact
the author about participating in a working group effort.
ACTION (Stewart): Request an extension from the RFC Editor so
that the IESG can talk to the author about participating in a
working group.
o Reverse Bootp
Dave Piscitello was not present, so there was little
discussion.
ACTION (Stewart): Request an extension from the RFC Editor so
that we can get input from Dave Piscitello.
