Minutes interim-1995-iesg-01 1995-01-12 16:30
minutes-interim-1995-iesg-01-199501121630-00

											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
    January 12, 1995

    Reported by: Steve Coya, IETF Executive Director

    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@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us>.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------
    Bradner, Scott / Harvard
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Halpern, Joel / Newbridge Networks
    Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison)
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Mankin, Allison / ISI
    Mockapetris, Paul / ISI
    O'Dell, Mike / UUNET
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
    Rose, Marshall / DBC
    Schiller, Jeff / MIT
    Topolcic, Claudio / BBN

    Regrets
    -------
    Klensin, John / MCI

    1. The minutes from the December 22 teleconference were approved. Coya
    to place in public archives.

    2. The IESG approved the publication of "Remote Network Monitoring
    Management Information Base <draft-ietf-rmonmib-rmonmib-03.txt> as a
    Draft Standard. Marshall is to annotate the document highlighting
    the change.

    3. The IESG approved the reclassification of RFC1058 "Routing
    Information Protocol to Historic, but only when an Informational
    Document (to be written) is sent to the RFC Editor which provides
    information and explanation as to the motivations for the move and
    the current state of RIP in the Internet. Mike and Scott were
    drafted to help Joel to write this document.

    4. The IESG approved "Printer MIB"
    <draft-ietf-printmib-printer-mib-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

    5. The IESG approved "ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM"
    <draft-ietf-ipatm-sig-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

    6. The IESG approved "MIME Content-Type for the Standard Generalized
    Markup Language Documents" (mimesgml) as a Working Group

    7. There were no objections to the publication of the "Remote Write
    Protocol - Version 1.0" document as an Experimental Protocol.

    8. There were no objections to the publication of "Transmitting IP over
    ATM AAL5 using DXI protocol" as an Informational RFC, but Allison
    asked for time to review. If no objections are received by January
    19, the document will be published.

    9. Paul reported on the possibility of the IETF and Usenix meeting
    jointly in Dallas (Fall '95). It appears that the best approach is
    for Usenix to meet either just before or just after the IETF. There
    is also the possibility of a common terminal room that would make it
    easier on the local host (MCI). Additional discussions will be
    held.

    10. The IESG discussed the practice of sending notices to the IETF
    Annoucement list when practices or policies are adopted by the
    IESG. For example, if the IESG desires to be looser or more strict
    in the quality and completeness of documents submitted for Proposed
    Standard status. The IESG concluded the these notes should be from
    the IETF Chair.

    11. It was suggested that an effort be made to search through the IESG
    archives and minutes from the teleconferences to assemble and
    consolidate IESG positions.

    12. Paul reported that he and Bob Hinden had concluded their
    negotiations on the text to be submitted with Sun's RPC and XDR
    specifications, conveying change control and ownership to the IETF.
    There were questions as to whom signs such an agreement on the
    receiving side (IETF Chair, ISOC President, ISOC and/or IETF
    Executive Directors, etc.). Paul reported further that the proposed
    text needs to be reviewed by counsel.

    13. The IESG discussed the problems with Netscape's practice of
    implying that the SSL speciciation is to be published as an RFC,
    especially since neither the IESG nor any Working Groups have
    received as such document. The sense of the IESG was that a formal
    message should be sent to Netscape, suggesting that they follow the
    accepted IETF practices by either submitting the document to the
    RFC editor, or as input to the appropriate WG.

    There was discussion as to the tone of the note, and
    suggestions/drafts are to be circulated to the IESG list.