home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
InfoMagic Standards 1994 January
/
InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso
/
inet
/
iesg
/
93_09_02
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-10-15
|
7KB
|
170 lines
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING
2 September 1993
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.
iesg-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us.
ATTENDEES
---------
Bradner, Scott / Harvard
Chapin, Lyman / BBN
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Crocker, Dave / SGI
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / SUN
Klensin, John / UNU
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Mankin, Allison / NRL
Rose, Marshall / DBC
Stewart, John / CNRI
IAB Liaison
Christian Huitema / INRIA
Yakov Rekhter / IBM
Regrets
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Minutes
-------
1. Administrivia
o Roll call
o Next meeting is 23 September 11:30 - 13:30 EDT
2. Protocol Actions
o The IESG approved moving the "Host Resources MIB" Internet-Draft
<draft-ietf-hostmib-resources-03.txt> to Proposed Standard.
o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for
IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)" Internet-Draft
<draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-02.txt> to Proposed Standard.
o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for
IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices" Internet-Draft
<draft-ietf-hubmib-objects-00.txt> to Draft Standard.
o The IESG previously approved moving CIDR to Proposed Standard.
Scott Bradner will reduce the review of the Operational Requirements
Area Directorate (ORAD) to one paragraph (or so) for inclusion in
the protocol write-up. The comments from ORAD ask for some small,
purely editorial, modifications to the documents; however, in the
interest of time, these changes will be sent to the RFC Editor after
the Protocol Action announcement is made and the Internet-Drafts are
being turned into RFCs.
ACTION (Bradner): Send a summary of the ORAD review of CIDR to the IESG
so the write-up section of the Protocol Action can be completed.
3. Working Group Actions
o Stream Protocol Working Group (ST)
The IESG wants IAB comments on this potential working group. A
question was asked about the BOF for ST; some attendees thought
that the BOF went well, while other attendees disagree. It was
agreed that the charter of the working group should explicitly
say that there goal is *not* to produce a standards-track RFC.
ACTION (Knowles): Add text to charter saying that they do not want to
produce a standards-track RFC.
ACTION (Stewart): Comment on the working group charter, especially
making sure that the goals and milestones are quantifiable.
4. Working Group Informational Documents
o "Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay"
<draft-ietf-ospf-guidelines-frn-00.txt> as Informational
ACTION (Hinden): Talk to Moy about whether the document should be
Informational or Proposed.
5. Management Issues
o IESG Policy on OSI-related work, and IESG response to OSIXTND
The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some
minor editing was done to make sure the announcement was not
overly general, possibly being interpreted as "watered down."
The IESG wanted to make sure Dave Piscitello had a chance to
review the announcement. The assembled IESGers want the
announcement to be mailed by Tuesday 7 September.
ACTION (Stewart): Get in touch with Piscitello and make sure he sees
the documents and makes any comments soon.
ACTION (IESG): Make announcement by Tuesday afternoon.
o IETF/IESG Chair's approach to IPng decision process
The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some
minor editing was done to the announcement. There was a debate
about the appropriateness of this solution, but the IESG agreed
that there was a chain of decisions that got IPng to this point,
and this solution is the natural result of that path.
ACTION (Gross): Send the second version of the draft to the IESG for
comments.
Allison Mankin, as one of the Co-area Directors for the IPng
Area, asked for clarification on what "open" meetings of the
directorate meant. It was agreed that having minutes for all
meeting released in a timely manner would satisfy openness.
Mankin and Scott Bradner said they would be able to give a
progress report on the forming of the IPng Area and its
directorate at IETF in November. Mankin and Bradner had some
questions on logistics and if the IETF Secretariat could help
provide human resources (e.g., minute-takers) and funding
(e.g., paying for teleconferences). These questions will be
resolved off-line.
ACTION (Bradner, Coya, Mankin): Work off-line to figure out what,
if any, support the IETF Secretariat can give to the IPng area.
o Scheduling of IETF Meetings
Some IETF meeting attendees (IESG members and otherwise) think
that the meetings are not planned far enough in advance. The
major problem currently is the high demand placed on local hosts
for logistic support (e.g., the many details involved with the
terminal room). There were two issues discussed: (1) trying to
make the current system work better, and (2) changing the system
so that meetings can be planned further in advance (e.g., getting
rid of some of the logistics demands on local hosts). The IESG
was in agreement that major religious holidays should be avoided.
ACTION (Coya): Try to think of ways to make the process better under
the current system.
o Do we want an IESG-wide policy on WG scheduling?
The IESG felt that an IESG-wide policy was not necessary. They
did feel, however, that the Secretariat would be well within its
rights to instate a general policy which can be fine-tuned by
area directors for their area if they wish. As a result, the
Secretariat will ask for approval from an area director if a
working group asks for more than two slots.
o IESG meetings at the IETF
The IESG will meet from 16:00 to 18:00 on Monday at the Houston
IETF meeting. Additionally, the IESG are to meet in the general
area of the registration desk at the conclusion of the morning
technical presentation to touch base and determine if additional
meetings are needed.