home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
InfoMagic Standards 1994 January
/
InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso
/
inet
/
iesg
/
92_02_20
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-04
|
18KB
|
490 lines
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE
February 20th, 1992
Reported by:
Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary
This report contains
- Meeting Agenda
- Meeting Attendees
- Meeting Notes
Please contact the IESG Secretary, Greg Vaudreuil, for more information.
ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Crocker, Steve / TIS
AGENDA
-------
1.0 Administrivia
1.1 Bash the Agenda
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
1.1.1 December 5th, 1991
1.1.2 December 12th, 1991
1.1.3 January 2nd, 1992
1.1.4 January 23rd, 1992
1.1.5 February 6th, 1992
1.3 Next Meeting
2.0 Review of Action Items
3.0 Protocol Actions
3.1 SMDS to Draft Standard
<RFC 1209>
3.2 822 Message Header Extensions
<draft-ietf-822ext-msghead>
3.3 Frame Relay MIB
<draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib>
3.4 X.400 88=>84 Downgrading
<draft-ietf-kille-88to84downgrade>
3.5 Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
<draft-ietf-kille-x_400mapping>
3.6 IP Type of Service
<draft-almquist-tos-02>
4.0 RFC Editor Actions
4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes
4.2 DCNL to Experimental
5.0 Technical Management Issues
5.1 Interoperability testing at IETF meetings.
5.2 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol
5.3 Report from the ROAD Group
5.4 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
5.5 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
5.6 Email Host Requirements
5.7 Working Group Early Warning System
5.8 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security
5.9 IP over FDDI to Draft
5.10 Network Database
6.0 IESG Technical Evolution document.
7.0 Working Group Actions
7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferencing (avt)
7.2 SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet (mpsnmp)
MINUTES
--------
1) Administrivia
1.2 Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the December 5th, 1991, December 12th, 1991, January
2nd, 1992, and January 23rd, 1992 meetings were approved. Approval
of the Minutes of the February 6th teleconference was deferred until
the next meeting.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Post the minutes for the December 5th, 1991,
December 12th, 1991, January 2nd, 1992, January 23rd, 1992, and
February 6th, 1992 IESG teleconferences.
The IESG discussed the manner in which action items should be
recorded in the IESG Minutes. The assignment and conclusion of
action items will be recorded in the minutes, but review of action
items in progress will not be reported.
1.3 Next Meeting
The IESG scheduled a teleconference from 12:00 to 2PM EST Thursday
March 5th.
2) Action Items
The action items were reviewed by email prior to the meeting. A
summary of the action items concluded is enclosed as appendix A.
3) Protocol Actions
3.1 SMDS to Draft Standard (Noel Chiappa)
<RFC 1209>
Dave Piscitello related current operational experience of RFC 1209
IP over SMDS service. Documentation of SMDS use is available, and
George Clapp is working on documenting RFC 1209 usage over SMDS.
This documentation does not need to be presented to the IESG in a
formal letter. To make the gathering of information easier, the
IESG agreed that specific customers and sites do not need to be
disclosed. The general question of verifying the accuracy of the
information was not discussed.
Based on Piscitello's observations, the IESG approved RFC1209 for
Draft Standard. The IESG still expects a report by email from
George Clapp before sending the recommendation to the IAB.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a message to the IAB recommending RFC 1209
be elevated to Draft Standard Status. Send the message after the IESG
receives a report on operational experience from George Clapp.
3.2 822 Message Header Extensions
<draft-ietf-822ext-msghead>
Two issues in the Message Header Extensions document were raised and
discussed. There is a small difference in the "Q" encoding of the
Message Headers and the "Quoted Printable" encoding in MIME.
Because these two documents are expected to be implemented in the
same software, there was a feeling that it would be better to use
the same encoding. The encodings differ in their treatment of the
space character, a special character in RFC 822 headers. The
Working Group chair responded that the differences in the encodings
were necessary to achieve the intended effect of having the most
"reader friendly" representation possible. The underscore character
is used represent a space in the header, and a space is left as
itself in the body. The IESG was satisfied with this explanation.
The second issue discussed concerned the operational implications of
changing the header specifications. It was pointed out the changing
the interpretation of the comment and quoted-string in the header
will generally result in a change to the header parsing algorithms
in user agents. Because of the complexity of these parsers, and the
traditionally bad conformance to RFC 822, there was a question about
whether this change to allow multi-character sets in the headers was
worth the potential harm to the mail reading infrastructure. This
protocol may prompt modifications to software that performs
addressing parsing, including that done by mail relays, and may
affect their operation.
The IESG agreed that the risks of this change were acceptable to
satisfy the needs for multi-lingual users of RFC 822 mail. The
Message Headers document is one of two documents defining the new
multi-media/ multi-lingual standards for RFC 822 email. No action
is necessary until MIME is approved.
3.3 Frame Relay MIB (Chuck Davin) LAST CALL: 2/11/92
<draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib>
The Frame Relay MIB Last Call was issued. In response to the last
call, comments were sent, and a new version of the document was
published as an Internet Draft. Recognizing that updates to
documents that occur very late in the process could be at odds with
their forward progress in an open way (or at best very confusing to
the community), the IESG concluded that greater care is warranted in
handling late-stage documents.
POSITION: After a Last Call is issued, no further versions of the
Internet Draft should be posted unless the Area Director specifically
requests such a posting.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a message to the IETF updating the last call
to reflect the current document.
3.5 Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
<draft-ietf-kille-x_400mapping>
The IESG discussed the current situation with this document. This
document has caused the IAB and IESG to clarify and revisit the
requirements for a standards track protocol not originating in the
IETF. This specific document has followed the understood practice,
and was reviewed at an IETF plenary meeting at a one-shot BOF.
ACTION: Gross: Bring this up to the IAB and seek clarification of the
specific procedural objections. If resolution is not possible,
schedule a meeting at the IETF of the relevant IAB, IESG, and Working
Group members to achieve resolution.
3.6 IP Type of Service
The IP Type of service document was sent to the IAB. Discussion
subsequently ensued on the IETF mailing list. The IESG discussed and
affirmed the decision to recommend TOS for Proposed Standard Status.
ACTION: Almquist -- Send a note to the IAB, and or the IETF,
acknowledging the discussion and affirming the IESG position that the
TOS document should be advanced per the IESG recommendation.
ACTION: Gross -- Add TOS to the IAB agenda and relay to the IAB the
sense of the IESG in regards to TOS.
4) RFC Editor Actions
4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes
Dave Borman reviewed the NETBIOS document. The document intends to
define a new standard end-node beyond the three defined in RFC 1002.
The extensions outlined in general seems reasonable, however, the
intent of the author is not clear. If this is to be an experimental
document, publication is reasonable. If this is intended to be a
Standard, the author needs to bring the document into the IETF.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Contact the author of the NETBIOS End-Nodes
document, and find out if it is intended to be an experiment or
standards track.
4.2 DCNL to Experimental
The RFC Editor forwarded the IESG the Dynamic Creation of Network
Links document for review.
This document is an independent submission to the RFC editor, even
though it was reviewed at an IETF BOF. There are no plans to submit
this document to the standards track at this time. If experiments
are encouraging, this may serve as a starting place for standards
track work.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify Jon Postel that the IESG has no objection
to the publication of the DCNL document as an Experimental RFC.
5) Technical Management Issues
5.1 Interoperability testing at IETF meetings.
The IETF Secretariat has received requests to support
interoperability testing and functional demonstrations at IETF
meetings. While the IESG believes that non-partisan interoperability
testing represents one of the biggest strengths of the Internet
Community, it believes that the IETF itself should not be the
explicit sponsor of such events. To do so probably goes beyond the
original charter of the IETF. Plus, there is the legitimate concern
that the IETF Secretariat does not have the resources to support
this type of additional activity.
POSITION: Demonstrations and interoperability testing cannot be
considered part of the IETF meeting itself, although there is no reason
why the results cannot be shared with the relevent WGs, if
approporiate. The IETF Secretariat does not have the resources to
assist in planning such activites and therefore any such demos or tests
have to organized and implemented by those performing the activity or
function.
5.2 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol
Because Steve Crocker was unable to attend, this topic was skipped.
5.3 Report from the ROAD Group
At its last meeting, the ROAD group has reached a set of
recommendations. These recommendations are grouped in terms of a
near term and a long term approach. The short term will address the
immediate threat of Class B address exhaustion and routing table
overload. The thinking regarding a longer-term scheme is still
preliminary. Two approaches focus on using CLNP and address
translation, and IP encapsulation.
The ROAD group is expected to publish a paper and make a
presentation before the San Diego IETF meeting. One possible
approach is to spin up two Working Groups, one on each of the two
aspects of the solution.
The IESG voiced several concerns. The process by which the ROAD
group reached its conclusions was a closed one, and it is important
to give the ideas developed a through public hearing, and actively
solicit comments.
To facilitate openness while moving quickly, the IESG suggested that
the ROAD group document as thoroughly as possible the options
discussed, and the specific reasons they were rejected. By having
this document, many questions can be deferred from the meetings
themselves.
ACTION: Gross -- Take sense of the IESG discussion to the ROAD group
and to Peter Ford, the other co-chair of the ROAD group, and encourage
them to consider to consider the requirements for openness in the IETF
process and the need for timeliness in writing the report from the ROAD
group.
5.9 IP over FDDI
Noel Chiappa conversed with Dave Katz, the chairman of the IP over
FDDI working group. They agreed that the specification has several
editorial changes that would be helpful, as well as a specific
technical change to the protocol to reflect current usage.
The IESG discussed whether it was necessary to write a new document,
and after discussion, agreed that a new document should be written
before elevation to Draft Standard Status.
ACTION: Vaudreuil, Chiappa -- Gather and forward to Dave Katz a list
of changes for the IP over FDDI document.
5.10 Network Database
The Network Database working group appears to be moving forward in a
direction without much community support. The IESG discussed the
relative merits of the working group, but was unable to determine
the degree of community support. There is no active liaison with
the major database vendors, and no liaison with Sqlaccess, a major
industry group defining common networking protocols for database
use.
ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Communicate with SQLAccess and get a current
reading on their work and the manner in which the IETF should liaise if
at all.
7) Working Group Actions
7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferencing (avt)
The IESG has not received a revised charter. No discussion was
necessary.
7.2 SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet (mpsnmp)
A new working group in the OSI Integration Area was proposed. This
working group is tasked to complete and standardize a suite of
protocols for SNMP over FOO. SNMP was designed to run over UDP,
however UDP is not available in all networking environments. This
working group is considered reasonable by the SNMP community.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet
Working Group as soon a complete charter is available.
8.0 Agenda Items Deferred
3.4 X.400 88=>84 Downgrading
<draft-ietf-kille-88to84downgrade>
5.4 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
5.5 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker)
5.7 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker)
5.8 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker)
6.0 Technical Evolution
Appendix A
Review of the Action Items
(257) [Noel Chiappa, Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 12
Contact George Clapp to document operational experience of
the IP over SMDS protocol.
Concluded.
(278) [Steve Coya, Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
If Huizer and Piscitello can make thedate, schedule a 1 hour
teleconference January 13th from 12PM to 1PM EST.
Concluded.
(258) [Dave Crocker] Assigned: Dec 12
Schedule a User Friendly Naming teleconference to determine
the correct course of action for the UFN document.
Concluded.
(245) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 05
Craft and send a notification to the RFC Editor to publish
the Internet Draft "A Catalog of Available X.500
Implementations" as an FYI RFC.
Concluded. The notification was sent December 13th.
(246) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 05
Craft, and hold a recommendation to publish the IP forwarding
MIB document as a proposed standard.
Concluded. The recommendation was sent 01/22/1992.
(254) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 12
Craft a recommendation to elevate the SIP MIB to Proposed
Standard.
Concluded. The recommendation was send 02/10/92.
(279) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
After approval from the Internet Area Directors, craft and
send a recommendation to the IAB to publish the TOS document
as a Proposed Standard.
Concluded. the recommendation was sent 2/10/92.
(280) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB recommending the
"IP Forwarding Table MIB" be published as a Proposed Standard
RFC. Include in the recommendation a note indicating the
dependency on the TOS document.
Concluded. The recommendation was sent 01/22/1992.
(281) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Send a message to George Clapp reminding him that the IESG
needs information on the extent of operational deployment
before it can move IP over SMDS to Draft Standard.
Concluded. This is a duplicate action.
(285) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Reschedule the RFC-Headers discussion for the February 20th
Teleconference.
Concluded.
(287) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Send a recommendation to the IAB that the Internet Drafts
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
Devices", "Definitions of Managed Objects for
Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices", and "Definitions of
Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices" be
published as Proposed Standard RFC's.
Concluded. The action was sent 2/10/92.
(292) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Drop the TCP-Extensions document from the Active que of the
IESG.
Concluded. No action required.
(294) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Send a note to Steve Casner reminding him that the IESG
cannot approve his proposed working group until an acceptable
charter has been filed with the IESG.
Concluded. Casner has been reminded.
(295) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06
Announce the Token Ring Monitoring Working Group to the IETF
mailing list.
Concluded. The working group was announced 2/10/92