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.93-01-25 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-08-31 | 11.4 KB | 287 lines

IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING January 25th, 1993 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, 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 --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Chapin, Lyman / BBN Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Davin, Chuck / Bellcore Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Coya, Steve / CNRI Huizer, Erik / SURFnet MINUTES ------- Administrivia o Approval of the Minutes The minutes of the January 4th and January 11th IESG Teleconferences were approved. o Next Meeting The next IESG teleconference was scheduled for February 1st, 11:30 ET. Protocol Actions o PEM The IESG approved PEM for Proposed Standard status. The notification was reviewed and approved with additions from Bob Hinden to clarify the patent situation and meet the requirements of RFC-1310 and minor revisions from Steve Crocker. Hinden proposed wording to be added to each of the protocol documents to call attention to the patents referenced. The IESG agreed this was a good idea and that it should be done by the RFC Editor. Discussion on the generic issue is recorded under "technical management". ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After the changes are made to the PEM notification, send it to the RFC Editor and the IETF list. o SMTP Extensions The SMTP Extensions document is being reviewed by the Area Director. New versions reflecting changes resulting from the review are expected. o String Representation New documents are still expected from Steve Hardcastle-Kille. o Dynamic Host Configuration Review of the DHC documents by the Area Directors has resulted in a significant list of technical and editorial changes. New documents are expected in the next week or so. A new version of the BootP options was published as an RFC by the IANA. BootP and DHC use the same option number space and the new IANA document contains option numbers which were also assigned in an incompatible manner in the DHC options document. The revised documents from the DHC Working Group are expected to be coordinated with the IANA. ACTION: Almquist -- Insure that the next version of the DHC options document and the IANA registered BootP options are compatible. Security has been addressed in some of the DHC documents. There does not appear to have been a comprehensive review of the security aspects of this protocol and Steve Crocker was tasked to conduct a review resulting in new security considerations section. ACTION: SCrocker -- Conduct a review of the DHC protocols for security related issues. Technical Management Issues o Patent considerations in Standards Track Documents The PEM documents break new ground wrt patents. The suggestion was made and accepted by the IESG that standards track documents referencing patents indicate such in the document. It is expected that the next version of RFC 1310 will contain sample text for this section. POSITION: Standards Track specifications should include a special section to indicate patent dependence or known legal infringements. o IP Addressing Guidelines A single topic meeting was held to clarify the IP addressing guidelines. The conclusion that CIDR was an architectural plan with several parts, some of which are standards track and some of which are informational, was reviewed and endorsed by the IESG. The action plan outlined in the minutes of that meeting was approved o SNMP Security Issues Security aspects of SNMP involves fundamental aspects of the SNMPV2 protocol, especially the naming structure. Use of parties for security affects the application of proxy agents which is fundamental to the ability of SNMP to scale. There are proposals to separate security from SNMPv2, but it is not clear that a separation will help resolve the issues. The IESG discussed a special teleconference for this topic but did not reach closure. RFC Editor Actions o SNMP over Various Transports Specific text in the set of three documents specifying transport mappings for SNMP over non-udp transport was called into question after the IESG approved them for publication. The text in question refers to the use of security with SNMP, a topic under continuing discussion. The IESG decided that the SNMP over Foo documents should be published with the understanding that, although the documents specify identifiers for SNMP transport domains that may be needed when SNMP security mechanisms are in use, the documents are equally applicable whether or not SNMP security mechanisms are present. Further, the documents themselves are silent on the question of what versions of the SNMP should be supported by standardized security mechanisms, and are therefore not inconsistent with any emerging community consensus on this question. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor indicating that the SNMP over Various Transport documents should be published with suggested editorial changes to reduce confusion with the current SNMP Security work. o Wide Area Routing with RIP The RFC Editor has sent the IESG a document submitted to him for Proposed Standard. The IESG accepted this proposal as a work item and Hinden took an action to review the document. ACTION: Hinden -- Review the Wide Area Routing with RIP and determine an appropriate IETF forum for consideration of this proposal. o FTP/FTAM Gateway The RFC Editor has requested clarification from the IESG on two points before publication, the standardization of a gateway document and the assumption of POSIX filenames in the protocol. The IESG agreed that gateway mappings between protocol stacks where information loss is possible is subject to standardization. This is consistent with the earlier action to standardize RFC822/RFC821 to X.400 mappings. The use of POSIX filename conventions will be re-considered before progression to Draft Standard. Any problems resulting from the use of POSIX filename conventions will uncovered in the process of implementation and operational testing. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG understanding on the issues raised with the FTP/FTAM gateway to the RFC Editor. Appendix -- Summary of Action Items ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After the changes are made to the PEM notification, send it to the RFC Editor and the IETF list. ACTION: Almquist -- Insure that the next version of the DHC options document and the IANA registered BootP options are compatible. ACTION: SCrocker -- Conduct a review of the DHC protocols for security related issues. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor indicating that the SNMP over Various Transport documents should be published with only small editorial changes to reduce confusion with the current SNMP Security work. ACTION: Hinden -- Review the Wide Area Routing with RIP and determine an appropriate IETF forum for consideration of this proposal. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG understanding on the issues raised with the FTP/FTAM gateway to the RFC Editor. Appendix -- Minutes from the IP Addressing Teleconference Minutes recorded by Phill Gross Today we held a conference call to discuss the status of the IP guidelines document by Yakov and Tony Li. Bernard Stockman, Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds, Phill Gross, Bob Hinden, Peter Ford, Tony Li, and Yakov Rekhter were on the call. In a startling display of ontime and underbudget project management (we finished by 12:50 EST!), we came to agreement on the following points and proposed approach: - The R/L IP guidelines document is really an architecture statement. With a title change and some minor wordsmithing/re-casting, those assembled on the call would be comfortable with publishing the (former) "guidelines" document as an architecture statement. - We felt that all the CIDR-related documents should be pulled together and published as an RFC set. Taken together,these documents would form the CIDR plan. - We felt there needed to be an overall recommendation from the IESG regarding CIDR. This recommendation would be published as an Applicability Statement, and would reference all the relevant documents in the set. Therefore, we would like to see the following document set published: Title Status Comments ---------------------------- ------ ------------------------------- 1. "IESG Recommendation for CIDR PS This would be an AS. It will and Address Allocation" describe how all the documents fit together, especially docs 4. and 5. Bob Hinden and Phill Gross took the action for this. 2. "Supernetting: An Address PS This would be the CIDR specification. Aggregation Strategy" Tony took the action to update and revamp this document accordingly. This is currently published as RFC 1338. 3. "Guidelines for IP Address PS This would be the CIDR architecture. Allocation" Yakov took the action to incorporate the appropriate changes to re-cast it (including a title change). This is currently available as an I-D. 4. "Guidelines for Management Info This would be the implementation of the IP Address Space" plan for CIDR address assignment. This is currently published as RFC 1366. We may not need to republish it. 5. "The Schedule" Info Claudio (for the FEPG) published a US-centric schedule for implementing RFC 1366. As part of this document set, we would like to see a schedule focused on the whole Internet. We hope to get Claudio's and the FEPG's help for this. Actions: - Bob/Phill -- Write the IESG recommendation; track overall progress - Tony -- Update the Supernetting document - Yakov -- Keep doing the Right Thing on the "Guidelines" document - Peter -- Tell Elise and Claudio to call Phill - Phill -- Set up follow-up phoneconf regarding the schedule Goal: publish all new documents as I-Ds by Feb 15th. Issue Last Call by March 1.