Minutes interim-1994-iesg-09 1994-05-26 15:30
minutes-interim-1994-iesg-09-199405261530-00

											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
    26 May 1994

    Reported 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 at
    <iesg-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us>.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Halpern, Joel / Network Systems
    Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison)
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Klensin, John / UNU
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Mankin, Allison / NRL
    Mockapetris, Paul / ISI
    O'Dell, Mike / UUNET
    Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
    Rose, Marshall / DBC
    Schiller, Jeff / MIT
    Stewart, John / CNRI
    Topolcic, Claudio / BBN

    Regrets
    ---------
    Bradner, Scott / Harvard
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI

    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
    Draft Agenda for the 26 May 1994 IESG Teleconference

    1. The minutes of the 12 May IESG teleconference were approved.

    ACTION(Stewart): Place the minutes in the IETF "shadow directories."

    2. The revisions to the POISED Working Group's charter were
    approved. It was noted that the progress of the group should be
    monitored closely -- especially for the first several goals.

    ACTION(Stewart): Announce the new POISED Working Group.

    3. Working Group Informational Documents

    o The IESG approved "WAIS over Z39.50-1988"
    <draft-ietf-iiir-wais-00.txt> for publication as an
    Informational RFC.

    4. RFC Editor Actions

    o The IESG feels that "Method for Coding Alphabetic Data Using
    Telephone keypad codes" needs more work before being published
    as an Experimental RFC.

    ACTION(Stewart): Send a message to the RFC Editor saying that the
    author intends to withdraw the document from the RFC Editor's queue.

    o The IESG had no objections to "Using Unicode with MIME" being
    published as an Experimental RFC.

    o The IESG had no objections to "UTF-7" being published as an
    Experimental RFC.

    5. Management Issues

    o The IESG agreed that the Secretariat should allow Internet-
    Drafts to be announced in the name of a concluded working group
    if the purpose is to advance a specification through the
    standards track. If the Secretariat receives an Internet-Draft
    for a concluded working group, the IESG Secretary will check
    with the appropriate area directors before announcing the
    Internet-Draft. Note that if there is serious debate about the
    specification, then the working group should be formally
    re-activated.

    o The IESG agreed that documents which do not come from an |
    operating working group would be subject to a minimum of a four |
    week Last Call period (as opposed to a two week minimum in the |
    case of the document coming from an active working group). |

    o The IESG agreed to the following process for approving new
    working groups:

    - the charter agreed to by the prospective chair and the area
    director(s) will be sent to the IAB and IESG lists
    - the IAB has one week to make comments (no comments is to be
    interpreted as "no objections")
    - the IESG may approve the working group sometime after the
    IAB's one week comment period
    - the IESG approval can happen in a meeting (face-to-face or
    teleconference) or via ballot on e-mail

    o A revision of RFC1602bis is available to the IAB and IESG that
    incorporates all changes suggested (including the "working
    group creation" and "Last Call" changes requested during this
    teleconference). Several documents are needed describing the
    function of bodies such as the IANA and the RFC Editor. The
    hope is to get IESG closure on the document before the ISOC
    Board of Trustees meeting at INET in Prague 14-17 June. The
    IESG was concerned that it has not yet seen the lawyer's review
    of 1602.

    ACTION(Chapin): See if the IESG can see the lawyer's review of 1602.

    The issue of how much the IETF is a part of ISOC was brought up,
    and will be discussed at the next IESG teleconference.

    ACTION(Stewart): Put "IETF part of ISOC" on the agenda for the next
    teleconference.

    o There was concern in the IESG about some of the ATM work because
    it seemed that two ATM-related documents were going to be
    treated differently with respect to the standards-track (at
    issue was pointing to ATM Forum standards). The appropriate
    area directors resolved the issue -- both documents will be put
    on the standards-track.

    The future of the IP-ATM work is to complete the "framework" and
    "signaling" documents and then go dormant to "see what people
    do." In the meantime, the IP-ATM mailing list will be used as a
    forum for implementors.