INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
                         14 July 1994

Reported 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 at
<[email protected]>.

ATTENDEES
---------

   Bradner, Scott / Harvard
   Coya, Steve / CNRI
   Halpern, Joel / Newbridge Networks
   Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
   Klensin, John / UNU
   Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
   Mankin, Allison / NRL
   Mockapetris, Paul / ISI
   O'Dell, Mike / UUNET
   Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
   Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
   Rose, Marshall / DBC
   Schiller, Jeff / MIT
   Stewart, John / CNRI
   Topolcic, Claudio / BBN

Regrets
-------
   Huitema, Christian  / INRIA (IAB Liaison)



This was a single-topic meeting on IPng.

0. Administrivia

ACTION(Bradner, Mankin): Send the IAB and IESG a preview of the
foils to be shown Monday morning.

  There will be an IESG dinner on Sunday evening at 20:15 (after
  the reception) in the Cosmopolitan Room.  Note that this is
  the same room made available to the IESG on mornings throughout
  the week.

  There is an IAB meeting on Sunday afternoon, and Yakov will ask
  about extending an invitation to Allison and Scott for an IPng
  briefing.

ACTION(Rekhter): Ask IAB about Scott and Allison attending the
Sunday afternoon IAB meeting.

1. IPng Security

  The IPng Area Directors have stated, and the Area Directorate
  has agreed, that IPng security should be "real" from the outset:
  it should be the default case rather than the exception.  The
  IPng Area Directors reviewed a list of security-related items
  (some of which will be included in the Monday morning talk at
  the Toronto IETF).  Some of the issues are in the process of          |
  being solved, while others are longer-term problems.  The
  important point is that IPng will *not* preclude a secure
  Internet layer.

2. Fixed vs. Variable-length Addresses

  The IPng Area Directors reported that there seems to be rough
  consensus that a 16-byte fixed-length address is wide enough
  to do "good things" for the near future (e.g., increase the
  number of hosts, allow for scalable routing, etc.).  However,
  the possibility of paradigm changes in the future has caused
  some people to recommend variable-length addresses.  The IESG
  felt that the use of variable-length addresses in a very, very
  large internet seems to be a research question, so an IPng
  with a fixed-length 16-byte address with an option for using
  variable-length seems to be the best compromise.                      |

3. End-point Identifiers

  The IESG felt that EIDs are not "ready for prime time," but
  that should not preclude the community from discussing the
  issue as a research question.

4. Future Organization and Life-time of IPng Working Group(s) and Area

  The IPng Area Directors reported that the issue of chairs of
  the IPng Working Group is not yet stable enough to discuss.

  After the IPng Area Directors make their recommendation, the
  IPng Working Group will be formed in the IPng Area.  At about
  the same time, the IPng-candidate working groups (CATNIP,
  SIPP, and TUBA) will be moved into the Internet Area, if they         |
  wish to continue their work.  After the IPng Working Group            |
  submits documents to the IESG, and the IESG approves them as a
  Proposed Standard, the IPng Area will be dissolved, and the
  IPng Working Group will be moved into the Internet Area.              |

  While the IPng Area is still active, there will be an "IPng
  Inquisitor" who will make sure that the appropriate questions
  get asked, and the appropriate outreach is done.

  Approximately two weeks after the end of the Toronto IETF
  meeting, there will be an IPng meeting with attendance from the
  IAB, IESG, and other involved parties.  This meeting will be
  multicasted on the MBone.

ACTION(Mockapetris): Work out the logistics information for the
IPng meeting.

  Because of all of the architectural issues relating to the IPng
  work, the IAB's participation is being encouraged in general
  throughout all of these proceedings.  However, Yakov Rekhter
  will be relaying three specific issues to the IAB for discussion:

  - What is the IAB's position on the contentious issues (e.g.,
    addressing, EIDs, etc.)?
  - A request for an architectural review of the details contained
    in the IPng recommendation.
  - Does the IAB want to author an architecture document as a
    companion for the protocol specifications?

  The IESG's current view on how the documents should progress to
  their entrance onto the standards track is as follows:

  - the IPng Area Directors will write an RFC summarizing the
    directional recommendation that they will make on Monday
    morning in Toronto
  - after returning from Toronto, a month to month-and-a-half
    long Last Call will be issued on the IPng Area Directors
    recommendations
  - comments received from the Last Call will be collected in
    an archive
  - the IESG and IAB would reply to the comments
  - when appropriate, the IPng Working Group's documents will
    be approved by the IESG as a Proposed Standard

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.