home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Editor's Note: Minutes received 11/20/92
-
- CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
-
-
- Reported by Christian Huitema/INRIA
-
- Minutes of the Simple Internet Protocol BOF (SIP)
-
- The Simple Internet Protocol BOF attracted a wide audience. The first
- part of the meeting was a quick review of the proposed SIP Charter,
- which was approved by the Group modulo alignment of the milestone dates
- with the proposed IESG decision schedule. The participants were
- reminded of the name of the mailing list: <sip-request@caldera.usc.edu>
- and that preliminary versions of the documents can be obtained by
- anonymous ftp from ``parcftp.xerox.com'' in the directories ``pub/sip''
- or ``pub/net-research''. Related documents on IPAE can be obtained from
- the same server in the directory ``pub/ip-encaps''.
-
- The discussion turned next to the SIP specifications, addressing a set
- of characteristic design points, and in particular some issues that were
- marked as provisional in the current specification:
-
-
- o Steve Deering presented a problem posed by the difference between
- the TCP pseudo header ``conceptual layout'' and the actual layout
- of the payload length and type fields in the packets, and asked
- whether conceptual and physical layout should be aligned. It was
- observed that the pseudo header remains constant (modulo the packet
- length) for the duration of the connection, while changing the
- layout would makes the hop count handling in each packet somewhat
- slower. Moreover, the relation between packet layout and pseudo
- header will have to remain ``conceptual'' when options like source
- routing are used. It was decided not to change the packet layout,
- but to explain more clearly the pseudo checksum computation rules
- in the documentation.
-
- o Some Group members questioned the absence of a checksum in the
- network header. This item had already been debated in the mailing
- list. The arguments for omitting the checksum will have to be
- presented in detail in a SIP overview document.
-
- o Some Group members questioned the small size of the payload type
- field, and the need to provide an extension mechanism, e.g., for
- student projects. Various solutions were proposed, e.g., to
- reserve the value ``255'' for an extension mechanism. The need for
- a payload type indicating ``intermediate options'' (to be processed
- by all routers) was mentioned in the same discussion. An example
- of a request for such options may be the need of performing ``trace
- route'' on a multipoint address. This mechanism will have to be
- documented in the specification.
-
- o The discussion on ``flow-ids'' showed that there was no consensus
- on this point that many members feel as deserving further research,
- and that the corresponding bits should remain reserved in the
-
- 1
-
-
-
-
-
- initial specification. However, the first implementors reported
- that the presence of a TOS field similar to that of IPv4 would help
- the transition process. This field will have to be added in the
- revised specification.
-
-
- One of the results of the discussions of the specifications was to
- outline the need for an ``overview'' document. The discussion turned
- then to addressing. Ross Callon objected that the 64 bits SIP addresses
- were smaller than the 160 bits NSAPs, so could not so easily be used to
- incorporate link layer addressing, e.g., telephone numbers. The
- discussion showed that the Working Group did not believe that the NSAP
- size was justified or needed, and that there is virtue in keeping the
- addresses compact. Steve Deering presented then the ``metropolitan''
- addressing plan. One of the result of the discussion was to outline
- again the need of more explanations. The overview or the addressing
- documents should explain how mobility, renumbering and policy routing
- are supported, based on concrete examples.
-
- Attendees
-
- Cynthia Bagwell cbagwell@gateway.mitre.org
- David Bolen db3l@ans.net
- Ross Callon callon@bigfut.lkg.dec.com
- Ken Carlberg Carlberg@cseic.saic.com
- Stephen Casner casner@isi.edu
- Rob Coltun rcoltun@ni.umd.edu
- Michael Conn 4387451@mcimail.com
- Chuck Cranor chuck@maria.wustl.edu
- David Crocker dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu
- Michael Davis mad@spirit.clearpoint.com
- Steve Deering deering@parc.xerox.com
- Barbara Denny denny@erg.sri.com
- Kurt Dobbins dobbins@ctron.com
- Jon Dreyer Jon.Dreyer@east.sun.com
- Ralph Droms droms@bucknell.edu
- Donald Eastlake dee@ranger.enet.dec.com
- Robert Enger enger@reston.ans.net
- William Fink bill@wizard.gsfc.nasa.gov
- Karen Frisa karen.frisa@andrew.cmu.edu
- Shoji Fukutomi fuku@furukawa.co.jp
- Robert Gilligan Bob.Gilligan@eng.sun.com
- Joseph Godsil jgodsil@ncsa.uiuc.edu
- Masayoshi Gohara mg@sinet.ad.jp
- Heather Gray heather@zk3.dec.com
- William Haggerty haggerty@ctron.com
- Joel Halpern jmh@network.com
- Robert Hinden hinden@eng.sun.com
- Don Hoffman don.hoffman@eng.sun.com
- Christian Huitema christian.huitema@sophia.inria.fr
- John Ioannidis ji@cs.columbia.edu
- Ronald Jacoby rj@sgi.com
- Charley Kline cvk@uiuc.edu
-
- 2
-
-
-
-
-
- Tracy Mallory tracym@3com.com
- Greg Minshall minshall@wc.novell.com
- Dave Monachello dave@pluto.dss.com
- Andy Nicholson droid@cray.com
- Erik Nordmark nordmark@eng.sun.com
- Joseph Ramus ramus@nersc.gov
- Benny Rodrig 4373580@mcimail.com
- Henry Sanders henrysa@microsoft.com
- Henning Schulzrinne hgs@research.att.com
- William Simpson Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
- Frank Solensky solensky@andr.ub.com
- Tang Tang tt@virginia.edu
- Richard Thomas rjthomas@bnr.ca
- Jim Thompson jim@tadpole.com
- Stuart Vance vance@tgv.com
- Gregory Vaudreuil gvaudre@cnri.reston.va.us
- A. Lee Wade wade@nsipo.nasa.gov
- Chuck Warlick warlick@theophilis.nsfc.nasa.gov
- Luanne Waul luanne@wwtc.timeplex.com
- Douglas Williams dougw@ralvmg.vnet.ibm.com
- Kirk Williams kirk@sbctri.sbc.com
- Daniel Wilson dvw@bellcore.com
- Robert Woodburn woody@sparta.com
-
-
-
- 3
-