home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)
-
- REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE
-
- May 28th, 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
- Crocker, Dave / TBO
- Gross, Philip / ANS
- Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
- Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
- Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
- Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
- Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
- Regrets
-
- Chiappa, Noel
- Crocker, Steve / TIS
- Coya, Steve / CNRI
- Davin, Chuck / MIT
- Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
- Hinden, Robert / SUN
- Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
-
-
-
- AGENDA
- ------
-
- 1. Administrivia
- 1.1 Bash the Agenda
- 1.2 Approval of the Minutes
- 1.2.1 Minutes of March 26
- 1.2.2 Minutes of April 27th
- 1.2.3 Minutes of May 4th
- 1.2.4 Minutes of May 11th
- 1.3 Next Meeting
-
- 2.0 Review of Action Items
-
- 3.0 Protocol Actions
-
- 3.1 PPP Authentication
- 3.2 SNMP Security
- 3.3 BGP Next Hop SNPA Attribute
- 3.4 SUPDUP
- 3.5 CLNP PING
- 3.6 Hostname Protocol
- 3.7 TFTP Protocol
- 3.8 PCMAIL
- 3.9 NFILE
- 3.10 SFTP
- 3.11 "ISO" Transport on TCP
- 3.12 WHOIS
- 3.13 RIP
- 3.14 BGP/OSPF Interactions
- 3.15 IDPR
-
- 4.0 Old Protocol Actions
- 4.1 RFC 951, RFC 1084 Bootstrap Protocol and Extensions
- 4.2 RFC 1144 Van Jacobsen Header Compression
- 4.3 RFC 1094 NFS
- 4.4 RFC 1057 RPC
- 4.5 RFC 887 Resource Location
-
- 5.0 Technical Management Issues
- 5.1 IESG Recommendation on ROAD work
- 5.2 IP Address Assignment Policies
-
- 6.0 Working Group Actions
- 6.1 OSI General
-
-
-
- MINUTES
- -------
-
- 1. Administrivia
-
- 1.1 Bash the Agenda
-
- The attendance at this Thursday Teleconference was a bit low.
- Because of missing IESG members, some of the agenda was skipped.
- There was discussion the IESG meeting dates and agreement was reached
- to resume Monday meetings as soon as possible.
-
- 1.2 Approval of the Minutes
-
- The minutes of the March 26th, April 27th, and May 4th teleconference
- were approved.
-
- 1.3 Next Meeting
-
- The IESG scheduled an conference for the next day, Friday May 29th
- from 12-2 EDT to discuss the ROAD recommendation authored by Philip
- Almquist. The previously scheduled meeting for Thursday June 4th
- will remain.
-
- 2.0 Action Items
-
- The action items were not reviewed at this meeting.
-
- 3.0 Protocol Actions
-
- The review of expired protocols resulted in a full list of protocol
- actions.
-
- 3.1 PPP Authentication
-
- The IAB had a few questions about the PPP Authentication Protocols.
- Without the attendance of Steve Crocker, discussion was deferred.
-
- 3.2 SNMP Security
-
- There is continued discussion on the SNMP Security documents. There
- has been some negative publicity concerning the lengthy delays
- getting these documents published.
-
- ACTION: Gross -- Send a note to the IAB expressing IESG concern about
- delays in approving the PPP Authentication and Secure SNMP protocols.
-
- 3.3 BGP Next Hop SNPA Attribute.
-
- The IAB has a few comments on specific aspects of this new BGP
- attribute. In reviewing these questions, it is becoming apparent
- that this extension to BGP does not have a strong constituency. It
- was reviewed by the BGP and IPLPDN working group, but the author as
- expressed the opinion that this protocol extension may already be
- OBE, and has no objections to removing it from the standards
- process. The chair of the IESG expressed grave concern that the IESG
- passed a protocol to the IAB that was not supported by the IETF.
-
- ACTION: Hinden, Piscitello -- Investigate the constituency and seek
- clarification of the process by which the BGP attribute was sent to the
- IESG for standards consideration.
-
- 3.4 SUPDUP
-
- The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
- call proposing to move SUPDUP to Historic Standard Status.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move SUPDUP,
- RFC 734, to Historical Standard Status.
-
-
- 3.5 CLNP PING
-
- The responses to the IESG last call on the CLNP PING protocol were
- not generally favorable. The situation with the ISO work on a
- similar protocol is not clear. The Area Director proposed deferring
- action on this protocol for a couple of months to get a better
- reading on other standardization activities.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the IETF suggesting that the IESG
- defer action on advancing RFC 1139, CLNP "Ping" until the prospects for
- the pending ISO consideration of this protocol can be better assessed.
-
- 3.6 Hostname Protocol
-
- The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
- call proposing to move the Hostname Protocol to Historic Standard Status.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the Hostname Protocol, RFC 953 to Historical Standard Status.
-
- 3.7 Trivial FTP Protocol
-
- TFTP is a solid part of the Internet architecture. It is widely
- implemented and deployed. No technical objections to the protocol
- were sent in response to the last call.
-
- Karen Solins would like the authorship of the draft to include Noel
- as an editor.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After resolving the questions of authorship of the
- TFTP document, send a recommendation to the IAB to elevate TFTP to
- Standard Status.
-
- 3.8 PCMAIL
-
- Many comments were received by the IESG in response to the last
- call. There was significant response indicating that the protocol
- was in active use. PCMAIL is clearly not a dead protocol, but it has
- failed to gain wider acceptance over the past two years.
- Unfortunately, it appears that PCMAIL is being deployed and supported
- by only a single company. PCMAIL does not appear to have the
- multiple interoperable implementations required for Draft Standard
- Stage.
-
- The IESG discussed the general question of whether protocols in
- current use should be designated as Historic. In the case of PCMAIL,
- the IESG felt that the status of "Informational Protocol" was clearly
- a more appropriate status reflecting the pseudo-proprietary nature of
- the protocol.
-
- Action: Vaudreuil -- Write a draft recommendation to the IAB moving
- PCMAIL to Informational. Send this note to the IESG for review.
-
- ACTION: Hobby -- Contact the relevant people at FTP Software and make
- the case that PCMAIL is not ready for Draft Standard.
-
- 3.9 NFILE
-
- The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
- call proposing to move NFILE to Historic Standard Status.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move NFILE,
- RFC 1037, to Historical Standard Status.
-
- 3.10 Simple File Transfer Protocol
-
-
- The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
- call proposing to move the SFTP Protocol to Historic Standard
- Status.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the SFTP
- Protocol, RFC 913, to Historical Standard Status.
-
- 3.11 "ISO" Transport on the TCP
-
- Several comments were received during the last call period suggesting
- editorial changes to the specifications. The title of the protocol,
- "ISO Transport on the TCP" was felt to be mis-representative. The
- specification only specifies Connection oriented transport, not
- connectionless. Further, use of ISO to identify OSI protocols is not
- currently considered preferable
-
- ACTION: Piscitello -- Contact Marshall Rose and request an editorial
- pass be made over the document before it is promoted to Standard.
-
- 3.12 WHOIS
-
- There was a single negative comment received in response to the last
- call. The assertion was that whois documents a single service from a
- single provider which has little utility over merely registering the
- port. The IESG discussed, and agreed that WHOIS servers are much
- more widely deployed that commonly believed, and that the interface
- is used to various information systems including the X.500 pilot
- project.
-
- ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Send a note responding to the WHOIS objection.
- In the note, make a solicitation for more information on existing servers.
-
- WHOIS is one of the older Internet Protocols. As such the
- documentation is likely to be limited and may have assumptions in it
- which are no longer valid.
-
- ACTION: Hobby -- Review the WHOIS Specification for accuracy and
- clarity. If it requires modifications, initiate work on a new document
- reflecting current practice.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB
- elevating WHOIS to Standard Status after outstanding questions about
- accuracy are resolved.
-
- WHOIS is one of the commonly use Internet directory services. The
- "System" of whois servers is not well documented, and is therefore
- less useful than it could be. Emerging technologies such as that
- used by World Wide Web (WWW) and Archie attempt to aggregate
- information from servers of this sort but do it in an ad-hoc manner.
- The IESG briefly discussed work that could be initiated in the IETF
- to help, and agreed to discuss that at a future time.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Add a discussion of WHOIS-like information
- services to a future IESG Agenda.
-
- 3.13 Routing Information Protocol
-
- The IESG received mixed comments on the elevation of RIP to
- Standard. There was a concern that elevating RIP to Standard will
- send a mixed signal to the community. RIP is an old-style routing
- protocols which neither fully supports current routing architecture,
- but does not support future routing either.
-
- The IESG discussed these objections and agreed that a mixed signal
- could be given. RIP is widely deployed and does meet the
- requirements for a Standard Protocol. RIP is the most widely used
- routing protocol. The IESG agreed to recommend RIP to Standard with a
- strong statement that this is part of the Grandfathering process and
- does not reflect a change in routing policy.
-
- Vaudreuil -- Draft the recommendation to the IAB elevating RIP to Full
- Standard. Include in the note the reasons the IESG is advocating this
- action.
-
- 3.14 BGP-OSPF Interactions.
-
- The IESG did not discuss this document.
-
- 4.0 Old Protocols Needing Review
-
- 4.1 BootP and Extensions
-
- The IESG requires more information to evaluate BootP in light of the
- work continuing in the DHC working group, which should be wrapped up
- soon.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Invite Ralph Droms to participate in an upcoming
- IESG teleconference to discuss BootP and the timetable for DHC
- completion.
-
- 4.2 Header Compression
-
- There has been no response from Van Jacobsen to queries about the
- accuracy of the header compression document.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a last Call for VJ Header Compression to the
- IETF list for Draft Standard. Explicitly solicit information on known
- problems.
-
- 4.3 NFS
-
- It is clear that NFS is not fully implementable from the NFS RFCs.
- The RFC are not incorrect, and they reflect the current version of
- NFS, but are not complete and are missing critical information. If
- they were to progress they need to be expanded and clarified. More
- complete specifications are available from XOpen. The IESG has
- received no word from SUN on their intention to continue down the
- IETF standard process. If SUN is not interested in pursuing
- standardization, the IESG agreed that Historical is the likely state
- for these documents. Hinden and Borman will continue their action to
- get a signal of intention from SUN.
-
- 4.4 RPC
-
- RPC was not discussed independently of NFS but is subject to the same
- consideration.
-
- 4.5 Resource Location
-
- Resource Location was not discussed.
-
- 5.0 Technical Management Issues
-
- 5.1 Review of IESG Recommendation on ROAD Work
-
- The IESG was unable to discuss the ROAD recommendation due to lack of
- time. A follow on teleconference was schedule for the next day, May
- 29.
-
- ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Set up a teleconference for May 29th to discuss
- ROAD Issues.
-
- 6.0 Working Group actions.
-
- 6.1 OSI General
-
- Discussion on disbanding the OSI General Working group was not held.
-
-