Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1993-iesg-17 1993-07-29 15:30
minutes-interim-1993-iesg-17-199307291530-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1993-07-29 15:30
Title Minutes interim-1993-iesg-17 1993-07-29 15:30
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1993-iesg-17-199307291530-00
											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)

    Report from the IESG Teleconference

    29 July 1993

    Recorded by: John Stewart, 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
    ---------
    Bradner, Scott / Harvard
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Crocker, Dave / SGI
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Klensin, John / UNU
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Mankin, Allison / NRL
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Rose, Marshall / DBC
    Stewart, John / CNRI

    IAB Liaison
    Christian Huitema / INRIA
    Yakov Rekhter / IBM

    Regrets
    Gross, Philip / ANS

    1. Administrivia

    o Roll call

    o Bash the agenda
    The first hour is to be spent on the Protocol Actions, Working
    Group Informational Documents, RFC Editor Actions, and Waiting
    for Area Director Action sections, and the next hour is to be
    spent on the Management Issues section.

    o Approval of the minutes
    The minutes from 24 June 1993 were approved.

    2. Protocol Actions

    o The IESG approved the Internet-Draft "X.400 use of extended
    character sets" <draft-ietf-x400ops-charactersets-03.txt> for
    the status of Proposed Standard.

    ACTION (Stewart): Make the Protocol Action announcement after the
    Last Call expires.

    o The IESG approved the Internet-Draft "Compressing IPX Headers
    Over WAN Media (CIPX)" <draft-ietf-pppext-cipx-04.txt> for the
    status of Proposed Standard. This action will not be announced
    until after Dave Piscitello finds out if this document and the
    IPX Control Protocol document should be advanced together.

    o Due to comments received during the Last Call, the IESG decided
    to hold "The Finger User Information Protocol" <rfc1288> at
    Draft Standard until a new document is submitted for review.

    3. Working Group Informational Documents

    o "Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts"
    <draft-ietf-tuba-sysids-01.txt> as Informational
    Dave Piscitello described this document, and he pointed out
    that it could be useful to more than just the Internet
    Community (e.g., the ATM Forum). Allison Mankin said that she
    would like to review the document before the IESG sent it to
    the RFC Editor for publication.

    ACTION (Mankin): Read the Internet-Draft and send comments to the
    IESG mailing list.

    o "Assertion of C=US; A=IMX" as Informational
    John Klensin discussed this with several people while in
    Amsterdam. He reported that the document does the right
    thing, but that publishing it as an Informational RFC in the
    Internet community is the wrong way to do it. Standards like
    this fall into ANSI's purview, so that is where this should
    be registered. He said that he expects a new Internet-Draft to be
    submitted for IESG review. It as suggested that maybe the new
    Internet-Draft could be published as an Experimental RFC.

    o "Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay" as Informational
    Some IESGers were concerned about the use of the word "guidelines"
    in the title of an Informational document. For clarification, it
    was pointed out that this document discusses IP-OSPF, not the OSPF
    that runs within Frame Relay clouds. Bob Hinden will contact John
    Moy.

    ACTION (Hinden): Contact John Moy.

    o "Op Reqs for X.400 Mngmnt Domains in GO-MHS" as Informational
    Erik Huizer reviewed this document and discussed it in
    Amsterdam. He says that there are two problems with the
    document: (1) minor editorial problems, and (2) this should
    be published as Experimental, not as Informational. This item
    will not appear on future IESG teleconference agendas until
    the "Surname=Postmaster" document is submitted to the IESG.

    5. Management Issues

    o IESG position on OSI-related work within the IESG
    A policy was proposed to the IESG for how to deal with OSI-
    related work within the IETF until the ISO liaison issue is
    resolved. As of the writing of these minutes, the most recent
    version of his proposal, including amendments from other IESG
    members is:

    Until such time as the relationship between ISOC and ISO has
    been *completely* resolved, effective immediately, the IESG:

    - will not charter any new working groups dealing with OSI
    technology; and,

    - will not standardize any technology dealing with OSI
    technology.

    Existing working groups, new work within the general scope of
    existing working groups with explicit IESG approval, new work
    related to IPng, and documents already on the standards track
    are exempt from this policy.

    If the relationship between ISOC and ISO has not been
    *completely* resolved within six months time, this policy will
    be re-evaluated by the IESG.

    Since ISOC is working on the liaison, it appeared proper to go
    ahead with this plan. Although not unanimous, IESG felt that the
    liaision issue would be less complicated for ISOC if the plan were
    accepted. There was a debate on the liaison issue itself and
    whether or not it is something that the IETF needs or wants. This
    debate was to point out that the issue on the table is that the
    IESG needs to come up with some kind of policy on how to deal with
    OSI work while the liaison issue is in limbo. The IESG agreed to
    instate the policy.

    o IPng decision process
    Discussion of this issue was deferred to a special one-topic-
    only teleconference to be held Friday 30 July at 10:30 EDT, but
    the comments from that teleconference are included below.

    There was a fundamental debate about whether the first stage of
    the IPng selection process was a matter for the Internet Area, or
    if the entire IESG needed to be present at all stages. No
    consensus was reached.

    Another suggestion was to form a blue-ribbon panel consisting of
    the Internet Area Directors and one or two experts from each of
    the working groups developing IPng candidates; the point of this
    suggestion was that a decision cannot be made in a vacuum. No
    consensus was reached.

    A suggestion made that several people endorsed, independent of a
    specific decision process, was to have a list of current
    documents, a document repository, and an IPng mailing list.
    Different IESG members had different views on how this mailing
    list would be used. One point made about this mailing list was
    that it would be very hard to reach consensus.

    Several people said that specific criteria for viable IPng
    candidates needs to be documented.

    A debate followed in which the issue of recusal was revisited.
    No consensus was reached.

    o Registration of types, sub-types, and character sets for MIME
    John Klensin said that currently the IANA can be asked to register
    just about anything. He feels that we need a better procedure,
    and suggested something like an informal Last Call. John Klensin
    said that he would send a proposal for how to deal with the
    problem to the IESG mailing list.

    ACTION (Klensin): Send proposed solution to the MIME registration
    problem to the IESG mailing list.

    6. RFC Editor Actions

    o "Simple Paging Protocol" as Informational
    Dave Crocker spoke with the author of this document. He said
    that the author seemed eager to work within the IETF. This
    item will remain on the agenda for the IESG teleconferences
    until the author withdraws the submission from the RFC Editor.

    o "Reverse BOOTP" as Experimental
    The IESG agreed to use Dave Piscitello's comments on this
    document as the IESG's response as a whole.

    ACTION (Stewart): Send Dave Piscitello's comments on the RBOOTP
    document to the IESG, the author, and the RFC Editor.

    o "Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages" as Experimental
    Dave Crocker was concerned about this document because it was
    not technically competent in that it cannot be implemented
    from the document alone. He also pointed out that this
    document is a new version of an old Experimental RFC. It was
    mentioned that the 822ext working group considered this approach
    for MIME, but ended up turning it down because it simply wouldn't
    work in the Internet.

    Several people said that this document is a good example of an
    RFC which, if published, should have a note in it from the
    IESG telling the reader that there is a competing proposal,
    which accomplishes the same goal, but is on the standards
    track. (Note that this is a general request for the RFC
    Editor, not a one-time-only request for this document.) It was
    added that the IESG should also have the right to scrutinize RFC
    submissions more closely which are updates of old Experimental
    RFCs.

    A few IESG members said that issues like these made them feel
    that a new document series for non-standards track material
    should be created. The IAB liaisons, as well as several IESG
    members, felt that the creation of a new document series should
    be an IAB decision.

    ACTION (Stewart): Add an item to the next teleconference agenda
    to discuss the IESG's thoughts on a new document series.

    o "Service Advertisement using the DNS"
    Dave Crocker said that this is being reviewed by the DNS Working
    Group. He pointed out that this is the second time a proposal
    has come before the community on how to make a "reserved for
    local use" field in the DNS into a standard.

    o "An Experiment in Remote Printing" as Experimental
    The IESG had no objections to this document being published
    as an Experimental RFC.

    ACTION (Stewart): Inform RFC Editor that the IESG has no objections.

    o "FTP Operation over Big Address Records"
    <draft-piscitello-ftp-bigports-01.txt> as Experimental
    It was mentioned that this specification proposes a general
    purpose solution that can be used over any of the IPng
    alternatives and has been implemented by at least two of the
    alternatives (TUBA and TPIX), and was being studied by a third
    (SIP) and that it is also suitable for operation of FTP over
    protocols other than TCP. Because several IESG members felt that
    this RFC Editor Action over-lapped with the IPng Management
    Issue, this issue was deferred until after the IPng issue was
    discussed.

    ACTION (Stewart): Send to the IESG a draft of the IESG Secretary's
    message to the RFC Editor so that the IESG can be sure it is in
    agreement about the details for all of the above RFC Editor Actions.
    Note that this message to the RFC Editor will include the IESG's
    request to be able to insert text in Information and Experimental
    RFCs.

    7. Waiting for Area Director Action

    o "Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet"
    <rfc1237> to Draft
    Dave Piscitello is doing research on this for the protocol
    write-up. He is also waiting for a decision to be made about
    whether to make editorial changes to the document.

    o CIDR documents: <draft-fuller-cidr-strategy-02.txt,
    draft-ietf-iesg-cidr-01.txt,
    draft-rekhter-ipaddress-guide-08.txt> to Proposed, and
    <draft-rekhter-cidr-environment-00.txt> to Informational
    Bob Hinden would like the Operational Requirements Area to look
    at these documents and provide input for the Last Call and
    Protocol Action write-ups. Scott Bradner agreed to do this
    with the ad hoc Directorate.

    ACTION (Bradner): Have the ad hoc Operational Requirements Area
    Directorate look at the CIDR documents.

    o "DNS Resolver MIB" <draft-ietf-dns-resolver-mib-01.txt> to
    Proposed
    The Network Management Area Directorate will review this
    document in its 6 August meeting.

    ACTION (Rose): Have the Network Management Area Directorate look at
    the "DNS Resolver MIB".

    o "DNS Server MIB" <draft-ietf-dns-server-mib-01.txt> to Proposed
    The Network Management Area Directorate will review this
    document in its 6 August meeting.

    ACTION (Rose): Have the Network Management Area Directorate look at
    the "DNS Server MIB".

    o "The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control Protocol (IPXCP)"
    <draft-ietf-pppext-ipxcp-04.txt> to Proposed
    Dave Piscitello is researching this to find out if it should
    progress with the other IPX documents.

    o Status of "Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2"
    <rfc1176>
    Klensin said that a new document is in the works, and that a
    Last Call could happen soon. He said that he and Joyce Reynolds
    are looking into this document, along with IMAP3 <rfc1203>, to
    see which document(s) should move to what status. Dave Crocker
    asked a general question about Prototype status and if the IESG
    had ever given a document such a status; if not, he feels that
    the IESG needs to discuss exactly what that status means. This
    issue will be discussed on the mailing list.

    ACTION (D. Crocker): Start a discussion on the IESG mailing list
    about the exact meaning of Prototype status.