home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
-
- REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE
-
- AUGUST 8TH, 1991
-
-
- Reported by:
- Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary
-
- This report contains
-
- - Meeting Agenda
- - Meeting Attendees
- - Meeting Notes
-
- Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil
- (iesg-secretary@nri.reston.va.us) for more details on any particular topic.
-
-
-
- 1. Meeting Attendees
-
- Callon, Ross / DEC
- Chiappa, Noel
- Gross, Philip / ANS
- Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
- Hinden, Robert / BBN
- Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
- Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
- Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
-
- Regrets
-
- Almquist, Philip / Consultant
- Borman, David / CRAY
- Crocker, Dave / DEC
- Crocker, Steve / TIS
- Coya, Steve / CNRI
- Davin, Chuck / MIT
- Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
-
-
- 2. Agenda
-
- 1) Administrivia
- - Bash the Agenda
- - Review of the Minutes
- - July 25th
- - July 30th - Aug 2nd.
- - Open Plenary Report
-
- 2) Review of Action Items
-
- 3) Protocol Actions
- - Review of protocol actions
- - TCP Large Windows
- - Router Discovery
- - BGP
-
- Minutes
- -------
-
- 1. Administrivia
-
- 1.1 Agenda Bashing
-
- Discussion of technical Management issues including a review of
- the status of current working groups was deferred until a later
- teleconference. It was expected that the important line by line walk
- through of the BGP Usage document would require significant time.
-
- 1.2 Approval of the Minutes
-
- There were no completed minutes to review at this meeting.
-
- 2. Review of Action Items
-
- (89) Apr 25 [Russ Hobby]
- Resolve the conflict with the two version of the IMAP protocol.
-
- Russ Hobby is working to resolve the conflict in names between the two
- IMAP protocols. Hobby has exchanged mail with the authors of both
- IMAP RFC's and has yet to reach agreement with them. It is not clear
- that a resolution by picking the "one true IMAP" is possible.
-
- POSITION: In the absence of any agreement between the two authors of
- the IMAP protocol RFC's the IESG recommends that they the RFC editor
- declare that the IMAP protocol has "forked" and rename the two
- resulting protocols.
-
- ACTION: Hobby - Write a note to the RFC Editor expressing the sense of
- the IESG in regard to the IMAP protocols.
-
- (130) Jul 11 [Philip Almquist]
- Create a finished version of the TOS specification ready to be
- published as a Proposed Standard, as soon as possible.
-
- This action is still pending
-
- (133) Jul 11 [Phill Gross]
- Find one of the authors of the BGP usage document, and encourage it's
- rewrite.
-
- This action has been discharged. Phill Gross worked directly with
- Yakov Rekhter to rewrite the usage document. This action is discharged
- as it is currently written, but there will be other actions to get the
- set of BGP documents finally published.
-
- (139) Jul 18 [Dave Borman, Bernhard Stockman]
- Work together to redefine the scope of the existing DNS working group
- and possibly start a new DNS Operations group.
-
- It is not clear whether this action is still current. It has been
- folded into a later action #157
-
- This action is still pending
-
- (141) Jul 18 [Greg Vaudreuil, Joyce Reynolds]
- Insure that the NISI working group charter is updated to reflect the
- addition of the following work item; write a document explaining the
- security issues of privacy and accuracy in Internet Databases.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
- (143) Jul 18 [Noel Chiappa]
- Chat with Geoff Stewart of Hale and Dore about continuing the research
- into the liability of standards making bodies.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
- (146) Jul 18 [Steve Coya, Greg Vaudreuil]
- Write the definitive IETF Handbook, to include material currently
- available in the guidelines to working group chairman, the guidelines
- to authors of internet drafts, and various draft IESG and IAB
- standards process documents.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
- (148) Jul 18 [Ross Callon]
- Send a more definitive explanation on the current status of the X.500
- documents than is likely to recorded by the beleaguered IESG-Secretary
- in these minutes.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
- (152) Jul 25 [Greg Vaudreuil]
- Invite Steve Kent and the rest of the IAB to the Thursday IESG meeting
- to discuss IPSO. Include a list of topics to be covered. Preference
- is to have a resolution.
-
- This action has been concluded.
-
- (155) Jul 25 [Greg Vaudreuil]
- Schedule a discussion on the evolution of existing standards in a
- upcoming IESG meeting.
-
- This action is still pending
-
- (156) Jul 25 [Greg Vaudreuil]
- Send a list of current protocol actions as a regular attachment to the
- IESG Agenda.
-
- This was discharged for the first time with this teleconference. It
- will be deleted, and continued for future agenda's.
-
- (157) Jul 25 [Phill Gross, Susan Estrada]
- Explore the need for an operations DNS working group, and if needed,
- find a chair and write a charter for a DNS operation meeting, where
- close coordination with the protocol group is explicitly specified.
-
- This action is still pending the resolution of the current state of
- the DNS working group. It is still not clear whether the best path is
- to split the working group of keep a single focus of attention.
-
- (159) Jul 25 [Noel Chiappa, ]
- Work with Vaudreuil to state the IESG understanding of the creation of
- IP version 7 as a POSITION of the IESG.
-
- This is still pending. Approval of the July 25th minutes to which
- this action applies is still pending.
-
- (161) Aug 02 [Noel Chiappa]
- Investigate Kent's concern about the router discovery protocols
- actions in response to a new default router announcement.
-
- This action has been completed. Kent's objections are addressed
- in the current wording of the Router Discovery document.
-
- (162) Aug 02 [Greg Vaudreuil]
- Schedule a discussion in an upcoming IESG meeting on mechanisms for
- registering distinguished names.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
- (163) Aug 02 [Noel Chiappa, Bob Hinden]
- Investigate the progress and direction of the IPLPDN working group and
- report to the IESG.
-
- This action is still pending.
-
-
- 3. Protocol Actions
-
- 3.1 Review of protocol items
-
- The first comprehensive list of pending protocol actions was sent to
- the IESG.
-
- 3.1.1 Ethernet MIB
-
- The Ethernet MIB controversy still exists.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Set up a teleconference for a 11 AM EST
- conference call on Ethernet MIB between Kastenholtz, Rose, Davin,
- Case, Gross, Vaudreuil, Chiappa
-
- 3.1.2 Security Guidelines
-
- A final Internet Draft version is ready to be published as an Internet
- Draft. This document was remanded back to the working group by the
- IAB. It's rewrite is nearing completion.
-
- 3.2 TCP Extensions for High Bandwidth*Delay paths.
-
- The executive director of the IAB notified the IESG that this
- recommendation would not be approved by the IAB. A technical "hole"
- was alluded to but no specifics were provided.
-
- This protocol was developed in a collaboration between Van Jacobsen\
- LBL, the End to End Research Group and the IETF TCP Large Windows
- working group.
-
- ACTION: Gross - Send a message to the IAB expressing the desire of the
- IESG to have technical feedback on the TCP Large Windows protocol
- extensions.
-
- ACTION: Gross - Write a statement to the IAB expressing the need felt
- by the IESG for a public response to the public IESG recommendations
- to the IAB.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send all approved IESG Minutes to the IAB.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- IESG Minutes should have the Date of Approval and
- the Date sent to the IAB noted in the text.
-
-
- 3.3 Router Discovery
-
- Noel Chiappa reported that Steve Kent is satisfied, although not
- absolutely happy with the current wording of the Router Discovery
- document. A recommendation will be written for the next IESG meeting.
-
- 3.4 BGP
-
- A line by line review of the current BGP Usage document was
- undertaken.
-
- The interaction of BGP and IGP's was a subject of much discussion.
- Members of the IESG felt that documenting how BGP and IGP's
- interoperate was a valuable part of the usage document, and contained
- information extremely helpful in operating the routing system. It was
- not clear whether this information for each IGP was appropriate for
- the main body of the BGP Usage document or an appendix.
-
- POSITION: It is the opinion of the IESG that the Appendix A discussing
- the interaction with BGP and an IGP in some form should be in the
- included with the BGP Usage document, either in the appendix or in the
- body.
-
- ACTION: Gross -- Communicate the opinion of the IESG concerning the
- Interactions of BGP with IGP's to the authors of the BGP Usage document
- and integrate the useful Interaction information into the document.
-
-
- The IESG also felt that the document would benefit from an abstract,
- of the form normally required for Internet Drafts.
-
-