INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
December 2, 1993
Reported by: Steve Coya, Acting 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
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison)
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Klensin, John / UNU
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Mankin, Allison / NRL
Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
Rose, Marshall / DBC
Regrets
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
1. The minutes of the November 18 teleconference were approved. They
will be placed onto the IESG directory at the shadow sites.
2. Following some discussion, the generic structure of IESG
teleconferences is to change slightly when there is a specific
suggestion for a topic that should be discussed at length . Attempts
will be made to focus on normal IESG business during the first hour
of the teleconference. The final hour is to be used for in-depth
discussions of a single topic. Should discussion be completed in
less than an hour, consensus will determine whether another major
topic will be discussed or the meeting adjourned early.
3. The IESG approved DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions as a Draft
Standard. Coya to send announcement to the IETF and RFC Editor.
4. The IESG discussed the recent exchange of e-mail pertaining to the
X3S3 "heads up" message. It was felt that some clarifications might
be needed, specifically pointing out that X3S3 scheduling their
meetings to coincide with IETF meetings was being interpreted as
co-meeting with the IETF. The IESG is not opposed to other groups
co-locating their meetings with the IETF, as long as the IETF and
the Secretariat are not affected negatively. Lyman was requested to
send a clarification message to the IETF, IESG, IAB, and X3S3.
5. Allison presented an overview of two new proposed WGs in the
Transport Services Area: RSVP and Integrated Services. The
Integrated Services charter is still be worked on, and potential
chairs are being considered.
To provide more time for review and comment from both the IESG and
the IAB, both WGs will be considered for approval at the next IESG
meeting.
6. An error in RFC1006 (ISO transport services on top of the TCP:
Version: 3) has been identified. Specifically, the sentence "Based
on the size of the data transfer (DT) TPDU, this permits a maximum
TSDU size of 65524 octets" is incorrect - the usual OSI Transport
segmentation mechanism applies and there is no limit on the size of
the transport *service* data unit.
It was suggested that a check should be made with everyone who has
implemented RFC1006, and identify those which may have chosen to
enforce the limitation prior to taking steps to have the RFC
republished (RFC1006 is currently an Internet Standard). Allison
agreed to take this action item. Erik offered to forward Allison's
query to entities that may not be on the collection of IETF lists.
7. Policy on wg formation
Marshall reviewed his area's new policy on controlling the creation
of working groups within the NM area, explicitly defining the steps
to be met in establishing new WGs. There was some discussion as to
whether this should eventually become an IESG policy, or be up to
the individual Areas to adopt or not. There was also discussion on
the whether these steps were to be considered requirements or
guidelines, and a few modifications of the steps (draft charter
required before or after BOF, etc) were discussed. The IESG generally
thought it could be a good approach, and the consensus was for each
of the areas to try it, or a variation of it.
8. Dave Crocker sent a revision of the WG Guidelines document to the
IESG, accompanied by a list of major changes since the last version.
IESG review and comment was solicited. Discussion was deferred to provide
time to read the document.
9. IETF meeting sites
Phill reported that he has begun working on the next group of IETF
meeting sites, and informed the IESG that sponsoring Social Events
was of concern to potential hosts. Following spirited discussions
and clarifications, the topic was deferred until more than one data
point of history could be obtained.
