home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
InfoMagic Standards 1994 January
/
InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso
/
inet
/
iesg
/
92_06_29
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-04
|
6KB
|
184 lines
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE
June 29th, 1992
Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary
This report contains
- Meeting
- Meeting Attendees
- Meeting Notes
Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information.
ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
AGENDA
-------
1. Administrivia
o Bash the Agenda
o Next Meeting
2. Working Group Actions
o Mobile IP
o IDRP for IP over IP
o Remote Conferencing
o Host Resources MIB
3. Technical Management Issues
o Ident Protocol Discussions
o IAB Report from Kobe
o IAB ROAD Decision
o IESG ROAD Recommendation
MINUTES
-------
1. Administrivia
o The Agenda was drastically reduced to make time for an extended
discussion on the IAB proposed recommendation for mid-term routing
and addressing.
o The IESG set Monday July 6th as the next IESG teleconference from
12-2, PM EDT. The IESG was invited to participate in the IAB
meeting July 6th, 5pm EDT.
2. Working Group Actions
o Mobile IP
The IESG approved the formation of the Mobile IP Working Group in
the Routing Area. This group has meet on several occasions as a
BOF.
o IDRP for IP over IP
The IDRP for IP over IP working group was approved. The first
working group meeting will be at the Boston IETF meeting.
o Host Resource MIB
The Host resources MIB working group was approved with a
restoration of specific non-document milestones. The first meeting
will be at the Boston IETF meeting.
o Remote conferenceing
The IESG had several concerns about the intended scope of this
effort. The group has chosen a very ambitious charter with
without much attention to the plan for completing their work. The
group may be better chartered as several smaller efforts. The
IESG decided that the group could meet in Boston as BOF.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Work with Hobby to redefine this work effort.
3. Technical Management Issues
o Ident Protocol Discussions
The IESG received a lengthy note from Dan Bernstein which was sent
to several large mailing lists. This note was intended to
document what was perceived to be injustices in the handling of
the RFC931 revisions document. While the IESG understood that the
note reflected Bernsteins view of the process/events, this view it
did not match that of the IESG, and the IESG felt compelled to
provide an official response.
ACTION: Gross -- Draft and send a response to the IETF list.
o IAB Kobe Meeting Report
Lyman participated in the teleconference and gave a brief report
of the IAB meeting in Kobe. At that meeting the IAB was
rechartered under the Internet Society as the Internet
Architecture Board. The majority of the time was spent
discussing the next generation routing and addressing
architecture.
o IAB Routing Recommendation
At the Kobe meeting, the IAB discussed the various proposals for
solving the current routing and addressing problems. They
characterize the problem in new terminology, with the following
recommendations. 1) The IETF should immediately begin
engineering address assignment to facilitate CIDR aggregation, 2)
The IETF should begin the design of the next generation Addressing
and Routing system based on CLNP, and 3) Research should proceed
on the long term routing and addressing protocols and
architecture. This document apparently represents a consensus view
as a reasonable direction to proceed.
The IESG discussed this document at length and had several
observations, the most immediate of which was the departure from
the IESG recommendation which circulated the
big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. The IAB rational for
making a decision immediately represents an understanding that
further time and energy devoted to debating the choice of network
layer protocol was neither feasible nor useful. Efforts aimed at
winning a debate are not likely to be the same efforts needed to
design complete and tested protocols.
The IAB has cast the decision in terms or working on an IP version
7 which is based on CLNP. The intent appears to allow the
IAB/IETF to have change control over the particular elements of
the protocol which may be required to make changes where
technically needed. There appears to be at least an appearance of
conflict between a desire to leverage current protocols and
infrastructure and the necessity to re-engineer portions of this
infrastructure.
It was accepted by most of the IESG that CLNP deployment can
proceed in a reasonable timeframe and was not a big obstacle. The
re-engineering of transport, application, routing, and management
protocols needed to maintain current levels of service is expected
by the IESG to be a much larger effort that is currently
understood. The IESG discussed and agreed that it was important to
give this proposed decision public review.
ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Schedule a time at the Boston IETF meeting for
an open discussion and review of the IAB's proposed recommendation on
IP version 7.
o IESG ROAD Recommendation
The IESG did not have enough time to review the Phill Gross/
Philip Almquist revised Routing recommendation. Those IESG members who
had an opportunity to review the work agreed with the overall
position and tone of the message and suggested publication in the
next few days.
ACTION: Gross -- Take editorial input from the IESG and post the IESG
recommendation to the IAB as an Internet Draft.