Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1992-iesg-14 1992-06-29 16:00
minutes-interim-1992-iesg-14-199206291600-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1992-06-29 16:00
Title Minutes interim-1992-iesg-14 1992-06-29 16:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1992-iesg-14-199206291600-00
    IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

    June 29th, 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
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Chiappa, Noel
    Crocker, Dave / TBO
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Davin, Chuck / MIT
    Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

    Regrets
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS

    AGENDA
    -------

    1. Administrivia
    o Bash the Agenda
    o Next Meeting

    2. Working Group Actions
    o Mobile IP
    o IDRP for IP over IP
    o Remote Conferencing
    o Host Resources MIB

    3. Technical Management Issues
    o Ident Protocol Discussions
    o IAB Report from Kobe
    o IAB ROAD Decision
    o IESG ROAD Recommendation


    MINUTES
    -------

    1. Administrivia

    o The Agenda was drastically reduced to make time for an extended
    discussion on the IAB proposed recommendation for mid-term routing
    and addressing.

    o The IESG set Monday July 6th as the next IESG teleconference from
    12-2, PM EDT. The IESG was invited to participate in the IAB
    meeting July 6th, 5pm EDT.

    2. Working Group Actions

    o Mobile IP

    The IESG approved the formation of the Mobile IP Working Group in
    the Routing Area. This group has meet on several occasions as a
    BOF.

    o IDRP for IP over IP

    The IDRP for IP over IP working group was approved. The first
    working group meeting will be at the Boston IETF meeting.

    o Host Resource MIB

    The Host resources MIB working group was approved with a
    restoration of specific non-document milestones. The first meeting
    will be at the Boston IETF meeting.

    o Remote conferenceing

    The IESG had several concerns about the intended scope of this
    effort. The group has chosen a very ambitious charter with
    without much attention to the plan for completing their work. The
    group may be better chartered as several smaller efforts. The
    IESG decided that the group could meet in Boston as BOF.

    Action: Vaudreuil -- Work with Hobby to redefine this work effort.

    3. Technical Management Issues

    o Ident Protocol Discussions

    The IESG received a lengthy note from Dan Bernstein which was sent
    to several large mailing lists. This note was intended to
    document what was perceived to be injustices in the handling of
    the RFC931 revisions document. While the IESG understood that the
    note reflected Bernsteins view of the process/events, this view it
    did not match that of the IESG, and the IESG felt compelled to
    provide an official response.

    ACTION: Gross -- Draft and send a response to the IETF list.

    o IAB Kobe Meeting Report

    Lyman participated in the teleconference and gave a brief report
    of the IAB meeting in Kobe. At that meeting the IAB was
    rechartered under the Internet Society as the Internet
    Architecture Board. The majority of the time was spent
    discussing the next generation routing and addressing
    architecture.

    o IAB Routing Recommendation

    At the Kobe meeting, the IAB discussed the various proposals for
    solving the current routing and addressing problems. They
    characterize the problem in new terminology, with the following
    recommendations. 1) The IETF should immediately begin
    engineering address assignment to facilitate CIDR aggregation, 2)
    The IETF should begin the design of the next generation Addressing
    and Routing system based on CLNP, and 3) Research should proceed
    on the long term routing and addressing protocols and
    architecture. This document apparently represents a consensus view
    as a reasonable direction to proceed.

    The IESG discussed this document at length and had several
    observations, the most immediate of which was the departure from
    the IESG recommendation which circulated the
    big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. The IAB rational for
    making a decision immediately represents an understanding that
    further time and energy devoted to debating the choice of network
    layer protocol was neither feasible nor useful. Efforts aimed at
    winning a debate are not likely to be the same efforts needed to
    design complete and tested protocols.

    The IAB has cast the decision in terms or working on an IP version
    7 which is based on CLNP. The intent appears to allow the
    IAB/IETF to have change control over the particular elements of
    the protocol which may be required to make changes where
    technically needed. There appears to be at least an appearance of
    conflict between a desire to leverage current protocols and
    infrastructure and the necessity to re-engineer portions of this
    infrastructure.

    It was accepted by most of the IESG that CLNP deployment can
    proceed in a reasonable timeframe and was not a big obstacle. The
    re-engineering of transport, application, routing, and management
    protocols needed to maintain current levels of service is expected
    by the IESG to be a much larger effort that is currently
    understood. The IESG discussed and agreed that it was important to
    give this proposed decision public review.

    ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Schedule a time at the Boston IETF meeting for
    an open discussion and review of the IAB's proposed recommendation on
    IP version 7.

    o IESG ROAD Recommendation

    The IESG did not have enough time to review the Phill Gross/
    Philip Almquist revised Routing recommendation. Those IESG members who
    had an opportunity to review the work agreed with the overall
    position and tone of the message and suggested publication in the
    next few days.

    ACTION: Gross -- Take editorial input from the IESG and post the IESG
    recommendation to the IAB as an Internet Draft.