Internet Info 1994 March

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Internet Info 1994 March / Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso / inet / iesg / iesg.91-09-05 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-02-04 | 22KB | 607 lines

IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 5TH, 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. Meeting Attendees ----------------- Borman, David / CRAY Chiappa, Noel Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Gross, Philip / ANS Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Hinden, Robert / BBN Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets: Almquist, Philip / Consultant Callon, Ross / DEC Crocker, Dave / DEC Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Agenda ------ 1) Administrivia - Bash the Agenda - Review of the Minutes - July 30th - Aug 2nd. (Pending Gross's review) - August 8th (Pending Gross's review) - August 15th (Pending Gross's review) - August 29 2) Review of Action Items 3) Protocol Actions - IGP Statement - BGP - Outstanding MIBS - Ethernet MIB - Decnet Phase IV over PPP 4) RFC Editor Actions - Message Send Protocol (Aug 30th Version) - Security Information Transfer Protocol - Finger revisions 5) Technical Management Issues - IETF Management Issues Minutes ------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Agenda Bashing The Agenda was approved as is. 1.2. Approval of Minutes 1.2.1 July 30th - Aug 2nd. These minutes, the first to be release publicly have been approved by the IESG pending a review by the Chairman. 1.2.2 August 8th These minutes have been approved pending review by the Chairman, 1.2.3 August 15th These minutes have been approved by the IESG with changes. They are waiting a review by the Chairman, 1.2.4 August 29th These minutes have been approved by the IESG. They are waiting a review by the Chairman, ACTION: Phill Gross -- Review the minutes of the Open Plenary, July 30th, August 8th, August 15th, and August 29th IESG meetings for public release. 2) Review of Action Items (89) Apr 25 [Russ Hobby] Resolve the conflict with the two version of the IMAP protocol. The authors have been in a dialogue with Hobby, and some progress has been made. The authors of both versions of the protocol have agreed to resolve the problem by declaring a split of the protocol and renaming each of the resulting protocols. The current obstacle is the insistence by the author of one version of the IMAP protocol that it be renamed POP4, a solution not acceptable to the area director. (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 is a continuing action. (136) Jul 11 [Steve Coya] Write a chapter explaining the IETF structure, including the IAB and IESG for the Technical Evolution Plan. Concluded. This was completed some time ago. (140) Jul 18 [Steve Coya] Explore the use of MMCONF for IESG teleconferences. Specifically, explore the availability and work-arounds for using MMCONF on non-SUN based systems. Continuing. The IESG discussed the possibility of declaring this excessively difficult, but most of the IESG felt that it was important to push on technology. MMCONF if it lives up to it's potential can make telephone conferences much better. (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 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 is still pending. (144) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker] Combine or rationalize the proposed security campaign with the security are plan. This 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 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. Concluded: Callon sent a review of the documents to the IESG August 29th. (149) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker] Assign a SAAG person to provide security guidance to the Point to Point working group. Concluded: Dave Balenson has been assigned to the PPP working group to provide guidance. (150) Jul 18 [Steve Coya] Draft a sample, generic letter to be used by corporations to give the IAB control over the future evolution of a particular protocol. This is still pending. (151) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker] Insure that the Common Authentication Technology charter is modified to reflect work related to the SPX protocol. Concluded: This was completed shortly after this meeting. (153) Jul 25 [Steve Crocker] Resolve the issues surrounding the IP Security Option and make the right thing happen. There is a September 30th deadline for constructive input. If no constructive feedback is provided to the IESG, this will be dropped as an active issue for the IESG. (155) Jul 25 [Greg Vaudreuil] Schedule a discussion on the evolution of existing standards in a upcoming IESG meeting. This is OBE. The IESG has agreed for now not to make a "Fast Track" for new versions of existing standards. (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 is continuing. (160) Aug 02 [Steve Coya] Write up the mechanisms for working groups to request or receive directorate support. This is continuing. (162) Aug 02 [Greg Vaudreuil] Schedule a discussion in an upcoming IESG meeting on mechanisms for registering distinguished names. This is continuing. This particular action was combined with action 181 and reassigned to Russ Hobby and Greg Vaudreuil. (163) Aug 02 [Noel Chiappa, Bob Hinden] Investigate the progress and direction of the IPLPDN working group and report to the IESG. This is continuing. (165) Aug 08 [Russ Hobby] Write a note to the RFC Editor expressing the sense of the IESG in regard to the IMAP protocols. Concluded. While the final resolution of this issue is not yet in hand, the RFC Editor has been told of the IESG position that the IMAP protocol be declared to have split. (166) Aug 08 [Greg Vaudreuil] Set up a teleconference for a 11 AM EST conference call on Ethernet MIB between Kastenholtz, Rose, Davin, Case, Gross, Vaudreuil, and Chiappa. OBE. Discussions within the IAB and the SNMP mailing list make this teleconference unneeded. (173) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil] Talk to author of the Multi-protocol Interconnect document about the name of this document; report results to IESG. Concluded. A dialogue with Carolyn Brown began and she is responsive in making changes as requested. (174) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil] Talk to the author of the Inverse ARP protocol about the need for a section documenting the design criterion and rational for the Inverse ARP protocol. Concluded. Carolyn Brown has been notified, and she has made changes to the document. (176) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby] Review the Message Send Protocol for the RFC Editor before August 27th. See discussion later in these minutes. (177) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby] Look at the list of enhancements for the Finger protocol and determine if these should be corrected in this re-release. Done. The two clarifications suggested to the Finger protocol should be made in this latest editing pass of the document. (178) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil] Schedule time in a future teleconference to discuss the wisdom of running SNMP only over UDP. This is continuing. (179) Aug 15 [Dave Borman] Get a copy of the UCL TCP proposal and distribute it to the IESG. Concluded. Borman has a copy of this proposal, but it is hardcopy. A fax will be sent to any IESG member requesting a copy. The basic proposal was outlined to the IESG in an earlier teleconference and email. (180) Aug 15 [Phill Gross] Request a formal vote and if the TCP extensions fails, a public notification with detailed reasons for rejection. OBE: Further discussion with the IAB has clarified the status of the document. The IESG sent a message to the IETF list withdrawing the protocol from IAB consideration. (181) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby, Steve Crocker] Organize an agenda for the Distinguished Name Teleconference. Work with Vaudreuil to schedule an appropriate time. This is continuing. Russ Hobby is to take the lead on this action. (183) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Send the notice withdrawing the IESG recommendation elevating the TCP extensions to the IAB with a CC to the IETF. Concluded: The message has been sent to the IAB and IETF. (184) Aug 29 [Phill Gross] Publish the latest draft of the BGP usage document as an Internet-Draft. Continuing: See discussion later in these minutes. (185) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Send the IAB a query soliciting input on the IP over Frame Relay document. If no objections are raised to the current document, send the recommendation with the new title to the IAB Thursday the September 12th. The query has been sent. Limited response from the IAB has been received. The comment period will remain open till September 12th. (186) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Contact the author of the Inverse ARP document and relate the specific comments of the IESG, encouraging the writing of a more complete rationale section. Continuing: The author has been notified, but the specific comments from the IESG are still being formulated in dialogue with the IAB. (187) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ietf-osids-replication-03> as an Informational document. This is still pending. (188) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Confirm that the FOX directory Pilot participants have been kept involved in the IETF directory efforts. Concluded: FOX participants have been involved with this effort. FOX folks will send specific comments on the documents by the end of the month. (189) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ietf-osids-replsoln-03> as a Proposed Standard. This is still pending. (190) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ucl-kille-networkaddresses-04> as a Proposed Standard. This is still pending. (191) Aug 29 [Ross Callon] Insure that the relevant section of ``An interim approach to use of Network Addresses'' document referring to X.25 NSAP's be edited. (????) This is still pending. (192) Aug 29 [Phill Gross] Write an applicability statement for ``Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming''. This is still pending. (193) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ietf-osids-friendlynaming-02> as a Proposed Standard. This is still pending. (194) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ietf-osids-cosinex500-05> as a Proposed Standard. This is still pending. (195) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil] Write a recommendation to publish <draft-ucl-kille-x500domains-03> as a Proposed Standard. This is still pending. (196) Aug 29 [Steve Crocker] Send a note to Postel and the author of the Message Send Protocol pointing out the IESG concerns about security, and include suggested text to satisfy the IESG. Concluded: This was done in force, with supporting notes from the SAAG. The IESG briefly discussed the format of the action items, and agreed that actions items should include a due date as well as the assign date. It was also mentioned that a status section may help with the review for those actions which are "on hold" waiting for an external action. 3) Technical Management Issues 3.1 IGP Statement The IGP statement was posted prior to the last IETF meeting and was reviewed in the Open Plenary session. It has been an Internet Draft for over a month, and it is now ready for publication as an Applicability Statement. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Compose a recommendation to elevate the IGP Applicability Statement. Due Date: Sept 12. 3.2 Many Mibs Final edits were made to the four MIBs ready for advancement. These MIBs are: FDDI, Bridge, Remote Monitoring, and Decnet Phase IV. The latest versions have been posted as Internet Drafts and are ready for RFC publication. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write recommendations with Chuck Davin to publish FDDI, Bridge, Remote Monitoring, and Decnet Phase MIBs as proposed standards. Due Date: September 12th. 3.3 Ethernet MIB The IAB proposed a compromise position on the Ethernet MIB, which will facilitate publication of the existing document as a proposed standard, while requiring interaction with the relevant 802 committees and requests specific implementation experience. The proposal is as follows: 1. Publish the Ethernet Mib document as a Proposed Standard IN THE FORM ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE IESG. 2. Request the Ethernet-MIB working group to prepare an explanation of the reasons for making mandatory those variables that are optional in the IEEE802.3 standard. Included in such a statement should be examples of implementation in silicon vs. software, and usage. 3. Forward a copy of the Proposed Standard MIB with this explanation to the chairman of IEEE802.3, as a contribution to IEEE802.3. Also include an explicit invitation for members and reviewers of IEEE802.3 to participate in the IETF WG, to ensure that it represents all available Ethernet expertise. 4. Strongly encourage the IETF working group to reconcile differences regarding mandatory MIB variables with the IEEE802.3 committee, prior to requesting advancement to Draft Standard status. 5. Recommend to that Working Group that, prior to requesting advancement to Draft Standard status, it prepare for the IAB a document summarizing field experience with the disputed variables, especially demonstrating the benefits of using the disputed variables. The IESG discussed the best way to reach consensus in the working group on this issue. While the mailing list allows for discussion, it is difficult to ascertain that consensus has been reached. The IESG discussed this at length (See discussion later in these minutes) and agreed that the Los Alamos meeting is the best place to reach consensus. Discussion on the mailing list and comments are solicited prior to that meeting. ACTION: Davin -- Take the IAB proposal for resolution of the Ethernet MIB situation to the working group as a proposal to be discussed at the Los Alamos IETF. 3.4 DECnet Phase IV over PPP The DECnet Phase IV over the Point to Point Protocol has been submitted to the IESG for consideration as a proposed standard. The IESG has not had time to review this document, and so consideration was deferred till the next meeting. Because this document was sent to the IESG by the author, Vaudreuil took an action to confirm that this was in fact approved and was being recommended by the PPP working group. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Confirm that the PPP Working Group has reviewed the DECnet Phase IV over PPP document. Due Date: Sept 12th. 3.5 PPP LLC and IP over PPP documents The Point to Point Protocol Working Group submitted the two PPP documents to be published as a Draft Standard. The IESG discussed these documents in terms of the requirements for elevation to Draft Standard. The documents accurately reflect changes made to current implementations to fix "holes" in the original state machine. It was not clear to the IESG whether all aspects of the documents have been implemented and tested, specifically synchronous operation. If these documents have not been fully implemented, they may need to be republished as Proposed Standards. ACTION: Chiappa -- Check with Brian Lloyd about the extent of the implementations of the PPP documents, specifically whether synchronous operation is supported by any current implementation. Due Date: Sept 12. 3.6 BGP Usage Document Phill Gross has an outstanding action to publish the usage Document as an Internet Draft. There is no progress to report. Yakov Rekhter has reviewed the edits and finds them acceptable. 4) RFC Editor Actions 4.1 Message Send Protocol Steve Crocker and the SAAG have been in dialogue with the author of the Message Send Protocol. An issue of security has been raised in this protocol. While the document is experimental, there is a strong feeling that at least a disclaimer should be placed in the document. Suggested text has been sent to the author. The IESG completed it's review of this protocol. Action: Vaudreuil -- Notify the RFC Editor that the IESG has reviewed the Message Send Protocol and recommends that text be added to the document plainly identifying the security shortcoming of the document. 4.2 Security Information Transfer Protocol The IESG received the Security Information Transfer Protocol from the RFC editor. It is the clear intention of the author to make this protocol a standard of some sort. While the IESG has some initial objections to the protocol as it is currently written, the author has expressed a willingness to work within the IETF framework to advance this document towards standards status. To date the author has posted the document as an Internet Draft. The IESG will begin a survey to determine whether this document has the constituency and necessity and whether it is consistent with the Internet Architecture to be pushed though the process. ACTION: S. Crocker -- Work with the author of the Security Information Transfer Protocol to determine the constituency and necessity of this protocol. Report findings to the IESG. ACTION: G. Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor that the author of the Security Information Transfer Protocol wishes to advance this document though the standards process and has begun a dialogue with the IETF community. 4.3 Finger The RFC Editor sent the IESG a new version of the Finger document. This new version is intended to be republished as a Draft Standard. Several typographical and syntactic changes made to make the protocol better reflect current implementations. Comments from an implementor have identified several additional points that the IESG felt should be addressed in this revision. The order of particular operations in the previous document was not specified, and the length of the transaction was not specified. With these two changes, the IESG approve this document for republication as a Draft Standard. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the RFC Editor that the Finger protocol should be republished as a Draft standard with two additional changes mailed earlier to the author and RFC Editor. 5. Technical Management Issues Several issues have been raised on the IETF mailing list in the past week. Among these issues was the difficulty of reaching consensus on electronic mailing lists. A discussion triggered in part by discord in the SMTP extensions working group has been brought to the IETF mailing list. Often there is a dis-continuity between the apparent consensus on a mailing list and the apparent consensus in a face to face meeting. Because these two groups may be composed of different actor, it is often difficult to reach closure. The question asked was: "Can the IETF use electronic mail as a means to do business and reach consensus?". The IESG found the discussion interesting and reached the following tentative position. POSITION: Mailing lists are vital for input and participation of the IETF working groups, however, face to face meetings are more efficient at negotiating and reaching consensus. When a conflict arises on a mailing list which cannot be resolved in a face to face meeting due to the inability of a principle to travel, the chairman has the obligation to act as the mediator and break the impasse. There was some thought that a formalization of the IETF rules under the Internet Society may help resolve some of these issues. After a period of debate the IESG felt that the IETF should work toward resolving procedural problems in it's traditional fashion until the articles of incorporation can be worked out between the IAB and the Internet Society. ACTION: Coya -- Get a copy of the draft articles of incorporation sent to the IESG next Tuesday 10th and invite Cerf and Chapin to the Teleconference to discuss the draft document. Due Date Sept 11th.