The working group will focus on defining a minimal set of global requirements which transition the Internet into a robust integrated-service communications infrastructure. Enhancements to individual protocols (e.g., adding additional routing information to routing protocols, or choosing IP queueing disciplines for routers) will be left to other working groups, except in those rare cases where detailed definitions of behavior are critical to the success of the enhanced architecture.
Extending the Internet service model raises a series of questions. The working group will focus on the three problems listed below:
(1) Clearly defining the services to be provided. The first task faced by this working group is to define and document the enhanced Internet service model.
(2) Defining the application service, router scheduling and (general) subnet interfaces. The working group must define at least three high-level interfaces: that expressing the application's end-to-end requirements, that defining what information is made available to individual routers within the network, and the additional expectations (if any) the enhanced service model has for subnet technologies. The working group will define these abstract interfaces, and will coordinate with and advise IP over "subnet" working groups (such as IP over ATM) in this.
(3) Developing router validation requirements which can ensure that the proper service is provided. We assume that the Internet will continue to contain a heterogeneous set of routers, running different routing protocols and using different forwarding algorithms. The working group will seek to define a minimal set of additional router requirements which ensure that the Internet can support the new service model. Rather than presenting specific scheduling and admission control algorithms which must be supported, these requirements will likely take the form of behavioral tests which measure the capabilities of routers in the integrated services environment. This approach is used because no single algorithm seems likely to be appropriate in all circumstances at this time. The working group will coordinate with the Benchmarking Working Group (BMWG).
We expect to generate three RFCs as a product of performing these tasks.
An important aspect of this working group's charter is in coordination with the development of IP Next Generation. The working group will be reviewed in November 1995 to determine if it should be re-chartered as is or modified to reflect IPng developments, in particular, but also operational and commercial developments. The IESG deems the great significance of this working group to merit this unusual review.
In addition, because many of the integrated services concepts are new, the working group may produce Informational RFCs explaining specific algorithms that may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and may host some educational meetings to assist both IETF members and members of the larger Internet community to understand the proposed enhancements to IP.
The working group proposes to hold regular meetings beyond those held at the IETF meetings.
APPENDIX - Integrated Services Working Group Management Plan
The general chair is Craig Partridge (BBN). The co-chairs are Dave Clark (MIT), Scott Shenker (XEROX), and John Wroclawski (MIT).
The dual reasons for this management structure are:
(1) The working group will have do considerably more outreach into the larger networking community than the typical IETF working group. For instance, one of the important tasks is to convince the larger public that IP is suitable for integrated services. So we need management manpower to do outreach.
(2) The working group has a lot of work to do and swiftly. Even though we plan to spin off working groups as fast as we can, a lot of key architectural decisions will need to be made in one place (e.g., by this working group) if the final architecture is to be sound. So we need management manpower just to keep the working group moving.
So Craig has primary responsibility for keeping the working group moving, and Dave, Scott, and John have primary responsibility for outreach to different communities (and titles sufficient to show they can speak for the working group).