Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1991-iesg-07 1991-09-19 16:00
minutes-interim-1991-iesg-07-199109191600-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1991-09-19 16:00
Title Minutes interim-1991-iesg-07 1991-09-19 16:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1991-iesg-07-199109191600-00
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1991

Reported by:
Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary

This report contains

- Meeting Agenda
- Meeting Attendees
- Meeting Notes

Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil
/>(iesg-secretary@nri.reston.va.us) for more details on any particular topic.

Attendees

Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Callon, Ross / DEC
Chiappa, Noel
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

Regrets

Borman, David / CRAY
Crocker, Dave / DEC
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI

Agenda

1) Administrivia
- Bash the Agenda
- Review of the Minutes
- Next Meeting
- Distinguished names
- Next IESG Teleconference

2) Protocol Actions
- Approve recommendations
- Bridge MIB
- DECNet Phase IV MIB
- Remote LAN Monitoring MIB
- FDDI MIB
- X500 and Domain Names
- Interim Approach to Network Addresses
- X.500 Replication Requirements
- X.500 Replication Extensions
- X.500 Schema
- OSI Directory for User Friendly Naming
- String Encoding of Presentation Addresses
- Criterion for Advancing Routing Protocols
- Discuss status
- Point to Point Protocol
- Call Accounting
- Border gateway Protocol

3) Technical Management
- Discontinuous Subnets
- Secure FTP

Minutes
-------

1 Administrivia

1.1 Agenda Bashing

The agenda was accepted as was mailed.

1.2 Minutes

No action was taken on any of the many outstanding sets of minutes.

1.3 Next Meeting

Distinguished name phone conference scheduled for September 26th. The
agenda will be provided by Russ Hobby. Members on the IESG-TECH
mailing list with the addition of Erik Huizer and Steve Kille should
be invited to participate.

The next IESG phone conference was scheduled for October 3rd.

2.0 Protocol Actions

The review of pending protocol actions began with a review of the many
MIBs up for consideration. A list of concerns was mailed the IESG list
and is included as an Appendix.

2.1) Bridge MIB

The Bridge MIB was submitted to the IESG as a proposed standard. The
recommendation has been crafted, but since that time, interesting
developments have occurred in IEEE. A new mostly stable version of the
source-routing specification has been adopted. This renders some of
the MIB objects in the SNMP MIB out of sync with the new version.
This raises some questions as to whether the document should proceed
to proposed standard, or be sent back to the Working Group for rework in light of
the new IEEE work. It should be noted that the IEEE draft is not yet
final version.

ACTION: Davin, Gross, D. Crocker -- Determine the proper course of
action to resolve the new conflict between the SNMP Bridge MIB and the
IEEE Source Routing MIB. This action should include sending the
liaison letter to the IEEE letter.

2.2) DECNet Phase IV MIB

This MIB is aligned with all the appropriate documents from DEC. The
IESG held approval of the MIB pending final text of the document.

Action: Davin -- Get the final text of the Decnet Phase IV MIB to the
Internet Drafts directory.

2.3) Remote LAN Monitoring MIB

The IESG approved the recommendation of both the RMON MIB and the RMON
trap MIB. While complex, these MIB is to be used only in special
purpose, possibly dedicated, monitoring "boxes".

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send the recommendation to publish the Remote
Monitoring MIB as a proposed standard.

2.4) FDDI MIB

The IESG approved this recommendation. This work is aligned with the
ANSI Version 6.2 work.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send the recommendation to publish the FDDI MIB
document as a proposed standard.

The IESG proceeded to review the recommendation for the X.500 documents.

2.5) X.500 and Domain Names

The IESG approved this recommendation.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a the recommendation to publish X.500 and Domain
Name document as an experimental protocol.

2.6) Interim Approach to Network Addresses

The IESG approved this recommendation, but a final version of the
document is needed from Steve Hardcastle-Kille.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send the recommendation to publish the Interim
Approach to Network Addresses document as a proposed standard after a
new version is posted as an Internet Draft.

2.7) X.500 Replication Requirements

The IESG approved this recommendation.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a the recommendation to publish the X.500
Replication Requirements document as an informational Document.

2.8) X.500 Replication Extensions

The IESG approved this recommendation.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a the recommendation to publish the X.500
Replication Extensions document as a proposed standard.

2.9) X.500 Schema

The IESG approved this recommendation.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a the recommendation to publish the X.500
Schema as a Proposed Standard.

2.10) OSI Directory for User Friendly Naming

The IESG approved this recommendation.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Send a the recommendation to publish the OSI
Directory for User Friendly Naming as a Proposed Standard.

2.11) String Encoding of Presentation Addresses

This recommendation was approved pending the insertion of text
supplied by Phill Gross. This text describes the IESG position on the
standardization of user interfaces. Further discussion is documented
later in these minutes.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Edit the recommendation to publish the String
Encoding of Presentation Addresses document as a proposed standard and
send to the IAB.

Phill Gross's text on the standardization of user interfaces was a
general purpose statement of IESG understanding. As such the
IESG encouraged Phill to expand on the text with the intention of
publication of this as an RFC.

ACTION: Gross -- Elaborate on the User Interface Policy statement with
the intention of publishing it as a RFC.

2.12) Criterion for Advancing Routing Protocols

The IESG considered Bob Hinden's Routing Requirements document. This
is an instance of a communication from the IESG documenting
operational procedures. The IESG agreed that this document should be
published as an Informational document.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- With Bob Hinden, craft a notification to the RFC
Editor to publish the IESG criterion for Advancing Routing Protocols
as an informational document.

The following are protocol actions which have not yet been recommended
by the IESG.

2.13) Point to Point Protocol

The Working Group chairman of the PPP working group confirmed that
there are multiple interoperable implementations of the PPP code, both
in synchronous and asynchronous mode. The IESG also considered the
lack of security provisions in the protocol, but were assured that the
protocol had the appropriate "hooks" and that the PPP working group
was working toward the security options. The only remaining issue was
the inclusion of the original authors on the PPP document. It is not
clear if all contributors should be listed or authors, or the current
author be listed as an editor.

ACTION: Chiappa -- Contact the author of the PPP documents and the
chairman of the PPP working groups to clarify for the IESG the
"lineage" of the current PPP documents with respect to their
authorship.

It is a tradition, but not a procedural necessity, to have protocols
that are being considered for Draft Standards status to be presented
to the IETF plenary for one last round of comments. In the next few
months, there are expected to be a rather large number of these
protocol actions, and the IESG would like to be able to clear some of
these off the cue by electronic mail. To facilitate this, the IESG
agreed to hold a weeks comment period before elevating the PPP
protocol to Draft Standard.

POSITION: Protocols which are being considered for Draft Standard
status need a public review outside of the working group before being
recommended to the IAB. This review traditionally occurs in the
Open Plenary session of a IETF, however, this review may also be
conducted by email on the IETF mailing list.

ACTION: Coya -- Add the policy on review of Draft Standard protocols
to the IETF handbook.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send in a note to the IETF announcing the pending
elevation of PPP to Draft Standard.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a recommendation elevation the PPP document
to Draft Standard.

2.14) Call Accounting Background Document

The Call Accounting Working Group has finished a background document
outlining the requirements of accounting services for the Internet. A
final version will be sent to the Internet Drafts directory shortly.
This document is for Informational purposed only. The IESG approved
the publication of this document.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write and send a "notification" to the RFC
editor after the final version of the Call Accounting document is
posted in the Internet Drafts Directory.

2.15) Border Gateway Protocol

The BGP usage document was sent the Internet Drafts Directory. The
protocol is now ready for recommendation to the IAB. Steve Coya was
unable to find a time for an IESG <=> teleconference before Interop.
Gross has asked for this topic to be added to the IAB agenda for their
Interop meeting and has requested that the IESG be invited for that
topic session. To stimulate this discussion, Gross has asked that the
recommendation be sent to the IAB prior to this meeting.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a recommendation to elevate BGP to Draft
Standard. In this note, include each of the 5 documents in the BGP set.

ACTION: Coya -- Send a note to the IAB explaining that the BGP
teleconferencing effort was unsuccessful and will be discussed in a
future meeting.

3) Technical Management Issues

3.1 Secure FTP

There has been a proposal to make FTP more secure. Two approaches
were suggested, 1) to authenticate the data path, and 2) add
negotiation into the control channel. The IESG was not prepared to
discuss these issues in depth, and tasked the Security and
Applications Area Directors to act upon these proposals.

ACTION: Crocker, Hobby -- Investigate the Secure FTP proposals, and
either encourage their publication or form a working group to review
these proposals.

4.2 Discontinuous Subnets

At the last IETF meeting a recurring topic came up with some urgency.
There are people who want to alter the nature of subnetting to allow
new functionality and new topologies to be built. There are two
primary issues.

1) There is a desire in large public networks to be able to connect
different networks connected without a router.

2) There is a desire and the capability in the "modern" IGP's to allow
subnets to become disconnected. A common example is a company having
a single network number connected by a second distinct network.

In the second case, there are two distinct situations. The first is
discontinuous subnets within a single AS, and the other is discontinuous
subnets across the broader network. From an engineering standpoint,
the solution is already at hand for subnets within a single AS. Inter
AS routing is a bit less settled, in particular, no EGP support the
carrying of subnet masks.

Several large architectural issues were raised in the IESG discussion.
First, the current routing and addressing architecture is reaching
it's limits. Any change in the current architecture should be
accomplished with an eye to the new routing paradigm. It is not
clear, but it seems likely that transition to the new paradigm may be
higher if we allow discontinuous subnets.

Both of these proposals result in removing the topological
significance out of the subnet address. This has the effect of
defeating one of the main arguments in favor of subnets, which was to
add some hierarchy to the otherwise flat addressing space. If this
happens, big things change.

The IESG realized that this is a bigger issue than could be settled in
the little time remaining in this teleconference. Further discussion
was deferred until the face to face meeting planned for the week of
Interop.

ACTION: Coya -- Schedule a 4 hour meeting sometime for the week of
Interop in a time when the most IESG members can attend.

ACTION: IESG -- Reread the NSAP Assignment Guidelines document,
and Chiappa's routing architecture message in preparation for the face
to face meeting.