home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
InfoMagic Standards 1994 January
/
InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso
/
inet
/
iesg
/
92_09_10
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-04
|
12KB
|
348 lines
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE
September 10th, 1992
Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary
This report contains IESG meeting notes, positions and action items.
For more information please contact the IESG Secretary.
iesg-secretary@nri.reston.va.us
ATTENDEES
---------
Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Borman, David / Cray Research
Crocker, Dave / TBO
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
Regrets
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Hobby, Russ /UC-Davis
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
AGENDA
------
1) Administrivia
o Review of Action Items
o Approval of Minutes
- August 24th
- August 31st
2) Protocol Actions
o TCP/IP Header Compression
o Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
o DHCP Options
o Interworking of DHC and BootP
o Decnet IV Control Protocol for PPP
o String Representation of Distinguished Names
o SNMP over OSI
o SNMP over Appletalk
o Generic Interface MIB
o Token Ring MIB
o Token Bus MIB
o LAP-B MIB
o X.25 Packet MIB
o RIP Version 2
o RIP Version 2 MIB
o RIP Protocol Analysis
3) Technical Management Issues
o Better IESG Review of Working Group Efforts
o ROAD Work Plan
o Identity Protocol
4) Working Group Actions
o SNMP Evolution (snmpev)
o P. Internet Protocol (pip)
o IP Address Encapsulation (ipae)
o Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils)
o Integration of Internet Information Service (iiis)
o Remote Conferencing (remconf)
o Connection IP (cip)
MINUTES
-------
1) Administrivia
o Bash the Agenda
A discussion of the procedures and expectations for IESG review was
scheduled for this meeting.
o Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the August 24th teleconference were approved. The
minutes of the August 31st were held over to allow additional
review.
2) Protocol Actions.
o TCP Header Compression
Dave Borman has worked to get clarifications and a new document
produced with little sucess. After discussion possible courses of
action, the IESG agreed to set a date of September 21st, after which
the IESG would notify the IETF that it was unable to progress the
document to Draft Standard status. This notification will include a
solicitation for additional help.
o Dynamic Host Configuration.
The IESG reviewed the Dynamic Host Configuration documents and found
them lacking both in editorial format and clarity and in technical
completeness. The IESG discussed the degree of change needed to be
done before the IESG would progress the documents.
Action: Almquist -- Compile a list of minimum changes required in the
Dynamic Host Configuration documents, submit these changes to the
author and request the changes.
o Decnet IV for PPP.
The IESG did not review the PPP Extensions for Decnet Phase IV. The
IESG noted the delay in reviewing this protocol and discussed
procedures to insure that further delay is avoided.
Action: Almquist -- Conduct a review of the PPP Extensions for Decnet
IV by September 14th.
o String Representation of Distinguished Names
o SNMP over OSI
o SNMP over Appletalk
Neither Dave Piscitello nor Eric Huizer were present to discuss
these protocols. The IESG did note that a discussion is occurring
on the IESG and IAB mailing list about the rational for
standardizing SNMP over other non-ietf protocol stacks. This has
not yet been completely resolved but is a topic the IESG needs to
address in the recommendation.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Research the discussions on SNMP over other
protocol stacks from the approval of the Multiprotocol SNMP Charter
discussions and send to the IESG list.
o Generic Interface MIB
o Token Ring MIB
o Token Bus MIB
o LAP-B MIB
o X.25 Packet MIB
Chuck Davin was unable to attend this teleconference and these
protocols were not discussed.
o RIP Version 2
o RIP Version 2 MIB
o RIP Protocol Analysis
The IESG reviewed the RIP Version 2 protocol. The protocol is
straight forward and technically complete. The IESG is concerned
about the general opposition to RIP as a routing protocol and tasked
Hinden to get an external review of the constituency and
architectural need for this protocol extension.
Action: Hinden -- Assemble an external review of the case for making
RIPV2 specification a proposed standard in preparation for sending the
recommendation to the IAB.
3) Technical Management Issues
o Better IESG Review of Working Group Efforts
The IESG discussed the need to improve the level of technical
guidance and timeliness and began a review of its internal
procedures for reviewing working group efforts and protocol
documents. One recurring problem is that of an Area Director
becoming swamped by a burst of standards activity, such as that
currently experienced in the Internet Area. One successful
management technique used in the Network Management and Security
areas is that of using a body of experts as reviewers for
specifications and mentors for working groups. After discussing
these successes, the IESG agreed that all areas should create such
advisory and review groups.
POSITION: All IESG Areas should have advisory groups to facilitate
better tracking of working group efforts and timely protocol review.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Plan an hour during the September 21st
teleconference for further discussion of IESG technical review.
o Road Work Plan
Hinden and Gross were unable to complete the IESG Routing and
Addressing plan and plan to have this posted as an Internet Draft by
September 14th.
o Identity Protocol
The IESG discussed the IDENT protocol and the controversy on the
IETF list. After an analysis of the various documents and
discussions by Dave Borman, the issues were reduced into a question
about the interoperability between RFC 931 and currently deployed
software as documented by TAP. It was the understanding that the
technical differences between RFC 931, IDENT, and TAP were minor and
with small changes to IDENT and reasonable implementation, there
should be no interoperability problems.
Action: Borman -- Document the analysis of IDENT and interoperability
with similar protocols and send it to the IETF list.
Action: S. Crocker -- Solicit reviews from other dis-interested
individuals on the interoperability of IDENT, TAP, and RFC 931.
Action: S. Crocker -- Ask the author of IDENT to submit a new document
with changes necessary to insure the interoperability between IDENT and
TAP and RFC931.
4) Working Group Actions
o SNMP Evolution (snmpev)
A potential conflict with the SNMP Security Working Group was raised
but without the attendance of Chuck Davin, was not resolved.
o P. Intenet Protocol (pip)
o IP Address Encapsulation (ipae)
Both of these charters are on hold pending publication of the IESG
ROAD work plan document. The charter for NIMROD is pending the
formation of a Working Group and is not expected to be ready to send
with the initial set of charters. No word has been heard from the
TUBA camp.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a poke to the TUBA folks to solicit a charter
for their efforts.
o Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils)
Russ Hobby was not on the teleconference to discuss this charter.
The charter is waiting a refinement to narrow the scope of the work
to templates and protocol clean-ups, not extensions.
o Integration of Internet Information Service (iiis)
A draft of the architecture statement was sent to the IESG list. A
list of issues needing further work was suggested, including a more
comprehensive discussion of security, including access and privacy,
A narrowing of the NIR scope to exclude the drafting of templates,
and the conceptual integration of the work of the IAFA and WNILS
groups.
Action: Reynolds -- Work with the relevant chairs to update the
architecture statement and send updated charters to the IESG Secretary
for recording.
o Remote Conferencing (remconf)
Discussion of this Working Group was deferred until Russ Hobby could
participate.
o Connection IP (cip)
The IESG accepted the Working Group chairman suggestion that the
group conclude.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Announce the conclusion of the Connection IP
Working Group.
Appendix - Action Items
--------
Action: Almquist -- Compile a list of minimum changes required in the
Dynamic Host Configuration documents, submit these changes to the
author and request the changes.
Action: Almquist -- Conduct a review of the PPP Extensions for Decnet
IV by September 14th.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Research the discussions on SNMP over other
protocol stacks from the approval of the Multiprotocol SNMP Charter
discussions and send to the IESG list.
Action: Hinden -- Assemble an external review of the case for making
RIPV2 specification a proposed standard in preparation for sending the
recommendation to the IAB.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Plan an hour during the September 21st
teleconference for further discussion of IESG technical review.
Action: Borman -- Document the analysis of IDENT and interoperability
with similar protocols and send it to the IETF list.
Action: S. Crocker -- Solicit reviews from other dis-interested
individuals on the interoperability of IDENT, TAP, and RFC 931.
Action: S. Crocker -- Ask the author of IDENT to submit a new document
with changes necessary to insure the interoperability between IDENT and
TAP and RFC931.
ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a poke to the TUBA folks to solicit a charter
for their efforts.
Action: Reynolds -- Work with the relevant chairs to update the
architecture statement and send updated charters to the IESG Secretary
for recording.
Action: Vaudreuil -- Announce the conclusion of the Connection IP
Working Group.
Appendix - Positions Taken
--------
POSITION: All IESG Areas should have advisory groups to facilitate
better tracking of working group efforts and timely protocol review.
Appendix - Outline for IETF Document Review
--------
- Document Info
- Title, author, date of document, date of review, Area and AD
- Name of reviewer
- What is the proposed status (PS, DS, IS, Info, Exp)?
- Is it part of a set of documents?
- Technical Summary and Overview of the Protocol (~half page)
- Technical Assessment (~half page)
- Is the protocol technically sound as proposed?
- Does it fit into the Internet architectural model? (or, does
it stretch or violate the Internet architecture?)
- How important is the protocol? Why is it needed?
- What are the advantages and disdvantages (if any) of the
chosen approach?
- Document Quality (~half page)
- Is the document well written overall? (eg, table of contents,
appropriate level of background material, good references,
easily to read and understand, etc)
- Is it specified well enough for independent implementors to
write interoperable implementations?
- Summary of Working Group Deliberations (~half page)
- Was there clear consensus on the issues?
- Were there competing approachs to the problem
-If so, do the supporters of the alternate approaches now
support the WG document?
- Has the I-D been openly available for review for the required period
- Has the WG met openly (eg, at IETF meetings)
- Was the WG generally on time and within their charter