Minutes interim-1993-iesg-20 1993-09-02 15:30
minutes-interim-1993-iesg-20-199309021530-00

											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING

    2 September 1993

    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.
    iesg-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------

    Bradner, Scott / Harvard
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Crocker, Dave / SGI
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Klensin, John / UNU
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Mankin, Allison / NRL
    Rose, Marshall / DBC
    Stewart, John / CNRI

    IAB Liaison
    Christian Huitema / INRIA
    Yakov Rekhter / IBM

    Regrets
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI

    Minutes
    -------
    1. Administrivia

    o Roll call

    o Next meeting is 23 September 11:30 - 13:30 EDT

    2. Protocol Actions

    o The IESG approved moving the "Host Resources MIB" Internet-Draft
    <draft-ietf-hostmib-resources-03.txt> to Proposed Standard.

    o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for
    IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)" Internet-Draft
    <draft-ietf-hubmib-mau-02.txt> to Proposed Standard.

    o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for
    IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices" Internet-Draft
    <draft-ietf-hubmib-objects-00.txt> to Draft Standard.

    o The IESG previously approved moving CIDR to Proposed Standard.
    Scott Bradner will reduce the review of the Operational Requirements
    Area Directorate (ORAD) to one paragraph (or so) for inclusion in
    the protocol write-up. The comments from ORAD ask for some small,
    purely editorial, modifications to the documents; however, in the
    interest of time, these changes will be sent to the RFC Editor after
    the Protocol Action announcement is made and the Internet-Drafts are
    being turned into RFCs.

    ACTION (Bradner): Send a summary of the ORAD review of CIDR to the IESG
    so the write-up section of the Protocol Action can be completed.

    3. Working Group Actions

    o Stream Protocol Working Group (ST)
    The IESG wants IAB comments on this potential working group. A
    question was asked about the BOF for ST; some attendees thought
    that the BOF went well, while other attendees disagree. It was
    agreed that the charter of the working group should explicitly
    say that there goal is *not* to produce a standards-track RFC.

    ACTION (Knowles): Add text to charter saying that they do not want to
    produce a standards-track RFC.

    ACTION (Stewart): Comment on the working group charter, especially
    making sure that the goals and milestones are quantifiable.

    4. Working Group Informational Documents

    o "Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay"
    <draft-ietf-ospf-guidelines-frn-00.txt> as Informational

    ACTION (Hinden): Talk to Moy about whether the document should be
    Informational or Proposed.

    5. Management Issues

    o IESG Policy on OSI-related work, and IESG response to OSIXTND
    The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some
    minor editing was done to make sure the announcement was not
    overly general, possibly being interpreted as "watered down."
    The IESG wanted to make sure Dave Piscitello had a chance to
    review the announcement. The assembled IESGers want the
    announcement to be mailed by Tuesday 7 September.

    ACTION (Stewart): Get in touch with Piscitello and make sure he sees
    the documents and makes any comments soon.

    ACTION (IESG): Make announcement by Tuesday afternoon.

    o IETF/IESG Chair's approach to IPng decision process
    The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some
    minor editing was done to the announcement. There was a debate
    about the appropriateness of this solution, but the IESG agreed
    that there was a chain of decisions that got IPng to this point,
    and this solution is the natural result of that path.

    ACTION (Gross): Send the second version of the draft to the IESG for
    comments.

    Allison Mankin, as one of the Co-area Directors for the IPng
    Area, asked for clarification on what "open" meetings of the
    directorate meant. It was agreed that having minutes for all
    meeting released in a timely manner would satisfy openness.
    Mankin and Scott Bradner said they would be able to give a
    progress report on the forming of the IPng Area and its
    directorate at IETF in November. Mankin and Bradner had some
    questions on logistics and if the IETF Secretariat could help
    provide human resources (e.g., minute-takers) and funding
    (e.g., paying for teleconferences). These questions will be
    resolved off-line.

    ACTION (Bradner, Coya, Mankin): Work off-line to figure out what,
    if any, support the IETF Secretariat can give to the IPng area.

    o Scheduling of IETF Meetings
    Some IETF meeting attendees (IESG members and otherwise) think
    that the meetings are not planned far enough in advance. The
    major problem currently is the high demand placed on local hosts
    for logistic support (e.g., the many details involved with the
    terminal room). There were two issues discussed: (1) trying to
    make the current system work better, and (2) changing the system
    so that meetings can be planned further in advance (e.g., getting
    rid of some of the logistics demands on local hosts). The IESG
    was in agreement that major religious holidays should be avoided.

    ACTION (Coya): Try to think of ways to make the process better under
    the current system.

    o Do we want an IESG-wide policy on WG scheduling?
    The IESG felt that an IESG-wide policy was not necessary. They
    did feel, however, that the Secretariat would be well within its
    rights to instate a general policy which can be fine-tuned by
    area directors for their area if they wish. As a result, the
    Secretariat will ask for approval from an area director if a
    working group asks for more than two slots.

    o IESG meetings at the IETF
    The IESG will meet from 16:00 to 18:00 on Monday at the Houston
    IETF meeting. Additionally, the IESG are to meet in the general
    area of the registration desk at the conclusion of the morning
    technical presentation to touch base and determine if additional
    meetings are needed.