IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE September 10th, 1992 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains IESG meeting notes, positions and action items. For more information please contact the IESG Secretary. iesg-secretary@nri.reston.va.us ATTENDEES --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Hobby, Russ /UC-Davis Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet AGENDA ------ 1) Administrivia o Review of Action Items o Approval of Minutes - August 24th - August 31st 2) Protocol Actions o TCP/IP Header Compression o Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol o DHCP Options o Interworking of DHC and BootP o Decnet IV Control Protocol for PPP o String Representation of Distinguished Names o SNMP over OSI o SNMP over Appletalk o Generic Interface MIB o Token Ring MIB o Token Bus MIB o LAP-B MIB o X.25 Packet MIB o RIP Version 2 o RIP Version 2 MIB o RIP Protocol Analysis 3) Technical Management Issues o Better IESG Review of Working Group Efforts o ROAD Work Plan o Identity Protocol 4) Working Group Actions o SNMP Evolution (snmpev) o P. Internet Protocol (pip) o IP Address Encapsulation (ipae) o Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils) o Integration of Internet Information Service (iiis) o Remote Conferencing (remconf) o Connection IP (cip) MINUTES ------- 1) Administrivia o Bash the Agenda A discussion of the procedures and expectations for IESG review was scheduled for this meeting. o Approval of the Minutes The minutes of the August 24th teleconference were approved. The minutes of the August 31st were held over to allow additional review. 2) Protocol Actions. o TCP Header Compression Dave Borman has worked to get clarifications and a new document produced with little sucess. After discussion possible courses of action, the IESG agreed to set a date of September 21st, after which the IESG would notify the IETF that it was unable to progress the document to Draft Standard status. This notification will include a solicitation for additional help. o Dynamic Host Configuration. The IESG reviewed the Dynamic Host Configuration documents and found them lacking both in editorial format and clarity and in technical completeness. The IESG discussed the degree of change needed to be done before the IESG would progress the documents. Action: Almquist -- Compile a list of minimum changes required in the Dynamic Host Configuration documents, submit these changes to the author and request the changes. o Decnet IV for PPP. The IESG did not review the PPP Extensions for Decnet Phase IV. The IESG noted the delay in reviewing this protocol and discussed procedures to insure that further delay is avoided. Action: Almquist -- Conduct a review of the PPP Extensions for Decnet IV by September 14th. o String Representation of Distinguished Names o SNMP over OSI o SNMP over Appletalk Neither Dave Piscitello nor Eric Huizer were present to discuss these protocols. The IESG did note that a discussion is occurring on the IESG and IAB mailing list about the rational for standardizing SNMP over other non-ietf protocol stacks. This has not yet been completely resolved but is a topic the IESG needs to address in the recommendation. Action: Vaudreuil -- Research the discussions on SNMP over other protocol stacks from the approval of the Multiprotocol SNMP Charter discussions and send to the IESG list. o Generic Interface MIB o Token Ring MIB o Token Bus MIB o LAP-B MIB o X.25 Packet MIB Chuck Davin was unable to attend this teleconference and these protocols were not discussed. o RIP Version 2 o RIP Version 2 MIB o RIP Protocol Analysis The IESG reviewed the RIP Version 2 protocol. The protocol is straight forward and technically complete. The IESG is concerned about the general opposition to RIP as a routing protocol and tasked Hinden to get an external review of the constituency and architectural need for this protocol extension. Action: Hinden -- Assemble an external review of the case for making RIPV2 specification a proposed standard in preparation for sending the recommendation to the IAB. 3) Technical Management Issues o Better IESG Review of Working Group Efforts The IESG discussed the need to improve the level of technical guidance and timeliness and began a review of its internal procedures for reviewing working group efforts and protocol documents. One recurring problem is that of an Area Director becoming swamped by a burst of standards activity, such as that currently experienced in the Internet Area. One successful management technique used in the Network Management and Security areas is that of using a body of experts as reviewers for specifications and mentors for working groups. After discussing these successes, the IESG agreed that all areas should create such advisory and review groups. POSITION: All IESG Areas should have advisory groups to facilitate better tracking of working group efforts and timely protocol review. Action: Vaudreuil -- Plan an hour during the September 21st teleconference for further discussion of IESG technical review. o Road Work Plan Hinden and Gross were unable to complete the IESG Routing and Addressing plan and plan to have this posted as an Internet Draft by September 14th. o Identity Protocol The IESG discussed the IDENT protocol and the controversy on the IETF list. After an analysis of the various documents and discussions by Dave Borman, the issues were reduced into a question about the interoperability between RFC 931 and currently deployed software as documented by TAP. It was the understanding that the technical differences between RFC 931, IDENT, and TAP were minor and with small changes to IDENT and reasonable implementation, there should be no interoperability problems. Action: Borman -- Document the analysis of IDENT and interoperability with similar protocols and send it to the IETF list. Action: S. Crocker -- Solicit reviews from other dis-interested individuals on the interoperability of IDENT, TAP, and RFC 931. Action: S. Crocker -- Ask the author of IDENT to submit a new document with changes necessary to insure the interoperability between IDENT and TAP and RFC931. 4) Working Group Actions o SNMP Evolution (snmpev) A potential conflict with the SNMP Security Working Group was raised but without the attendance of Chuck Davin, was not resolved. o P. Intenet Protocol (pip) o IP Address Encapsulation (ipae) Both of these charters are on hold pending publication of the IESG ROAD work plan document. The charter for NIMROD is pending the formation of a Working Group and is not expected to be ready to send with the initial set of charters. No word has been heard from the TUBA camp. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a poke to the TUBA folks to solicit a charter for their efforts. o Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils) Russ Hobby was not on the teleconference to discuss this charter. The charter is waiting a refinement to narrow the scope of the work to templates and protocol clean-ups, not extensions. o Integration of Internet Information Service (iiis) A draft of the architecture statement was sent to the IESG list. A list of issues needing further work was suggested, including a more comprehensive discussion of security, including access and privacy, A narrowing of the NIR scope to exclude the drafting of templates, and the conceptual integration of the work of the IAFA and WNILS groups. Action: Reynolds -- Work with the relevant chairs to update the architecture statement and send updated charters to the IESG Secretary for recording. o Remote Conferencing (remconf) Discussion of this Working Group was deferred until Russ Hobby could participate. o Connection IP (cip) The IESG accepted the Working Group chairman suggestion that the group conclude. Action: Vaudreuil -- Announce the conclusion of the Connection IP Working Group. Appendix - Action Items -------- Action: Almquist -- Compile a list of minimum changes required in the Dynamic Host Configuration documents, submit these changes to the author and request the changes. Action: Almquist -- Conduct a review of the PPP Extensions for Decnet IV by September 14th. Action: Vaudreuil -- Research the discussions on SNMP over other protocol stacks from the approval of the Multiprotocol SNMP Charter discussions and send to the IESG list. Action: Hinden -- Assemble an external review of the case for making RIPV2 specification a proposed standard in preparation for sending the recommendation to the IAB. Action: Vaudreuil -- Plan an hour during the September 21st teleconference for further discussion of IESG technical review. Action: Borman -- Document the analysis of IDENT and interoperability with similar protocols and send it to the IETF list. Action: S. Crocker -- Solicit reviews from other dis-interested individuals on the interoperability of IDENT, TAP, and RFC 931. Action: S. Crocker -- Ask the author of IDENT to submit a new document with changes necessary to insure the interoperability between IDENT and TAP and RFC931. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a poke to the TUBA folks to solicit a charter for their efforts. Action: Reynolds -- Work with the relevant chairs to update the architecture statement and send updated charters to the IESG Secretary for recording. Action: Vaudreuil -- Announce the conclusion of the Connection IP Working Group. Appendix - Positions Taken -------- POSITION: All IESG Areas should have advisory groups to facilitate better tracking of working group efforts and timely protocol review. Appendix - Outline for IETF Document Review -------- - Document Info - Title, author, date of document, date of review, Area and AD - Name of reviewer - What is the proposed status (PS, DS, IS, Info, Exp)? - Is it part of a set of documents? - Technical Summary and Overview of the Protocol (~half page) - Technical Assessment (~half page) - Is the protocol technically sound as proposed? - Does it fit into the Internet architectural model? (or, does it stretch or violate the Internet architecture?) - How important is the protocol? Why is it needed? - What are the advantages and disdvantages (if any) of the chosen approach? - Document Quality (~half page) - Is the document well written overall? (eg, table of contents, appropriate level of background material, good references, easily to read and understand, etc) - Is it specified well enough for independent implementors to write interoperable implementations? - Summary of Working Group Deliberations (~half page) - Was there clear consensus on the issues? - Were there competing approachs to the problem -If so, do the supporters of the alternate approaches now support the WG document? - Has the I-D been openly available for review for the required period - Has the WG met openly (eg, at IETF meetings) - Was the WG generally on time and within their charter