Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) Report from the IESG Teleconference 24 June 1993 Recorded 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 Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Klensin, John / UNU Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Mankin, Allison / Locus Rose, Marshall / DBC Stewart, John / CNRI Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI IAB Liaison Christian Huitema / INRIA Yakov Rekhter / IBM Regrets Hinden, Robert / SUN Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Minutes ------- 1. Administrative Issues o Roll Call o Revisions to the Agenda o Approval of the Minutes - The minutes of the 13 May, 27 May, and 10 June IESG teleconferences were approved. o Scott Bradner will not be in Amsterdam o The IESG/IAB lunch in Amsterdam will be Wednesday 14 July; probably in the RAI for convenience. 2. Protocol Actions o The IESG approved the elevation of the MIME Internet- Drafts ("MIME Part 1" and "MIME Part 2") to the status of Draft Standard. o The IESG approved the MIME-MHS Internet-Drafts ("Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies," "Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies," and "HARPOON: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the messages") for the status of Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved the "Content-MD5 Header" Internet-Draft for the status of Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved the Common Authentication Technology Internet-Draft ("Generic Security Service Application Program Interface," "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)," and "Generic Security Service API: C-bindings") for the status of Proposed Standard. 3. Working Group Actions o Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (mmusic) was approved as a working group under the Transport Area. o Inter-Domain Multicast Routing (idmr) was approved as a working group under the Routing Area. 4. Working Group Informational Documents o Assertion of C=US; A=IMX Erik Huizer said that the technical quality of the document is good, but there is a question about whether documents whose scope is limited to one nation are in the purview of the IESG/IETF. After some discussion, he said that he thinks it would be acceptable to approve this document for Experimental status, but that the IESG still needs to decide on a general policy for how to deal with documents of significance to a single nation. One person noted that this could be thought of analogous to NTP's current status; specifically, something which is of good technical quality, but is not appropriate or of interest to the entire IETF. It was also noted that if approving this document resulted in interoperability across U.S. borders, then perhaps it is not "just" pertinent to one nation. A question was brought up as to why the Internet needs a node so high up in the naming tree; a comment was also made that the ADMD=" " convention might break some current implementations. Naming in this context involves policy issues which are decided by an ANSI / U.S. State Department collaboration. ACTION (Klensin, Chapin): Edit the document for any particular content and/or terminology which may be expected by the ANSI / U.S. State Department collaboration. o Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay No action to report. o Op Reqs for X.400 Mngmnt Domains in GO-MHS Erik Huizer has not yet read the document. He will ask John Klensin to look at it. 5. Management Issues o HP's complaint about TELNET Environment Option The crux of this problem is that the way the working group documented the environment option was inadvertently different than the reference implementation; the working group's solution to the inconsistency was to change the specification to match the implementation. This upset Hewlett-Packard because they coded to the RFC. It was noted that this is a clash of cultures resulting from the Internet's growth and attention by more parties. The way the IESG can address this issue in general is by setting policies for acceptable types of changes to go from Proposed to Draft and from Draft to Standard. For this specific case, the consensus was to allow the working group to make the change, but to do so in recycling the RFC back to Proposed (i.e., rather than going from Proposed to Draft Standard). Also, the working group will have to address any interoperability problems before moving up to Draft. As a general procedural matter, it was agreed that all organizations doing business with the IESG should do so via electronic mail. ACTION (Coya, Stewart): Draft a statement on acceptable types of changes that can happen when going from Proposed to Draft and from Draft to Standard. ACTION (Huizer, Klensin): Inform the telnet working group of the IESG's discussion, and supply them with a revised version of the document to be drafted by Coya and Stewart. This action should be taken before the IESG responds to Hewlett-Package. ACTION (Gross): Respond to Hewlett-Packard's complaint after the document to be drafted by Coya and Stewart is completed, and after the telnet working group has been told of the IESG discussion. o IP over ARCNET from Historic to Draft Don Provan of Novell responded late to the Last Call with information to the effect that there were as many as five implementations of RFC1201. This issue will be tabled until the members of the IESG have a chance to see Provan's message. ACTION (Stewart): Send Don Provan's message to the IESG mailing list. o ATM Forum Allison Mankin reported that the June 21-23 ATM Forum meeting voted to object to the proposed IETF vc-routing charter of producing a routing protocol specification for ATM. This vote was consonant with the view of the ATM Forum's technical committee chair, Glenn Estes, who had previously talked with her about his disagreement with Fred Sammartino's (the President of ATM Forum's) position on vc-routing. As comment on the vote about IETF, Estes has stated that IETF members are welcome to participate in developing the standard in the ATM Forum, through their companies' Forum memberships. Standards contributions can only be received from Forum members. Further discussion on this will wait until Bob Hinden is able to participate. Christian Huitema reported that there was a similar discussion in an IAB teleconference recently. ACTION (Gross): Communicate the IESG's discussion on the IETF/ATM Forum issue to the IAB. ACTION (Mankin, Gross, Hinden): Talk privately about the IETF/ATM Forum issue, and then contact the vc-routing proposed working group chairs. o Router Requirements Working Group There has been no luck in contacting Phill Almquist, the current chair of Router Requirements, to try and find the working group's status. ACTION (Knowles): Continue to try to contact Almquist. ACTION (Gross, Rose, Knowles): Try to find new chair(s) and four editors. o BBN's request for ST-II demo Erik Huizer was concerned about BBN's last minute request and logistically complex request to do an ST-II demo. o Second IESG Liaison to the IAB During the period of the POISED activities, it was decided that the IESG and IAB should each exchange 2 representatives to participate on the other body. This would include the respective chairs and one other member. During these discussions, Bob Hinden was nominated, and tentatively agreed to serve, as the second IESG representative on the IAB. During this call, the IESG agreed to extend the invitation to Bob. During the discussion, it was noted that the IAB decided that the IETF chair would have an ex-officio vote on IAB matters, but the other IESG representative would not. There was a brief related discussion about whether the IAB should vote, or even participate, on the IESG. Because the IAB plays a part in appeals, some felt that this gave the IAB two votes. There was not enough of a discussion to come to consensus. ACTION (Gross): Talk to Bob Hinden about being the second IESG liaison to the IAB. (Note: Gross has since spoken to Hinden, and Hinden has agreed to serve.) o IETF Charter Phill Gross is currently working on it. ACTION (Gross): Present draft of the IETF Charter by Amsterdam. 6. RFC Editor Actions o Simple Paging Protocol There was consensus that work of this nature should be the result of an IETF working group. Some felt that there were simpler ways to achieve the author's goal and that another protocol was not necessary. An extension will be requested from the RFC Editor so that the IESG can contact the author about participating in a working group effort. ACTION (Stewart): Request an extension from the RFC Editor so that the IESG can talk to the author about participating in a working group. o Reverse Bootp Dave Piscitello was not present, so there was little discussion. ACTION (Stewart): Request an extension from the RFC Editor so that we can get input from Dave Piscitello.