IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE June 29th, 1992 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains - Meeting - Meeting Attendees - Meeting Notes Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information. ATTENDEES --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Chapin, Lyman / BBN Chiappa, Noel Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS AGENDA ------- 1. Administrivia o Bash the Agenda o Next Meeting 2. Working Group Actions o Mobile IP o IDRP for IP over IP o Remote Conferencing o Host Resources MIB 3. Technical Management Issues o Ident Protocol Discussions o IAB Report from Kobe o IAB ROAD Decision o IESG ROAD Recommendation MINUTES ------- 1. Administrivia o The Agenda was drastically reduced to make time for an extended discussion on the IAB proposed recommendation for mid-term routing and addressing. o The IESG set Monday July 6th as the next IESG teleconference from 12-2, PM EDT. The IESG was invited to participate in the IAB meeting July 6th, 5pm EDT. 2. Working Group Actions o Mobile IP The IESG approved the formation of the Mobile IP Working Group in the Routing Area. This group has meet on several occasions as a BOF. o IDRP for IP over IP The IDRP for IP over IP working group was approved. The first working group meeting will be at the Boston IETF meeting. o Host Resource MIB The Host resources MIB working group was approved with a restoration of specific non-document milestones. The first meeting will be at the Boston IETF meeting. o Remote conferenceing The IESG had several concerns about the intended scope of this effort. The group has chosen a very ambitious charter with without much attention to the plan for completing their work. The group may be better chartered as several smaller efforts. The IESG decided that the group could meet in Boston as BOF. Action: Vaudreuil -- Work with Hobby to redefine this work effort. 3. Technical Management Issues o Ident Protocol Discussions The IESG received a lengthy note from Dan Bernstein which was sent to several large mailing lists. This note was intended to document what was perceived to be injustices in the handling of the RFC931 revisions document. While the IESG understood that the note reflected Bernsteins view of the process/events, this view it did not match that of the IESG, and the IESG felt compelled to provide an official response. ACTION: Gross -- Draft and send a response to the IETF list. o IAB Kobe Meeting Report Lyman participated in the teleconference and gave a brief report of the IAB meeting in Kobe. At that meeting the IAB was rechartered under the Internet Society as the Internet Architecture Board. The majority of the time was spent discussing the next generation routing and addressing architecture. o IAB Routing Recommendation At the Kobe meeting, the IAB discussed the various proposals for solving the current routing and addressing problems. They characterize the problem in new terminology, with the following recommendations. 1) The IETF should immediately begin engineering address assignment to facilitate CIDR aggregation, 2) The IETF should begin the design of the next generation Addressing and Routing system based on CLNP, and 3) Research should proceed on the long term routing and addressing protocols and architecture. This document apparently represents a consensus view as a reasonable direction to proceed. The IESG discussed this document at length and had several observations, the most immediate of which was the departure from the IESG recommendation which circulated the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. The IAB rational for making a decision immediately represents an understanding that further time and energy devoted to debating the choice of network layer protocol was neither feasible nor useful. Efforts aimed at winning a debate are not likely to be the same efforts needed to design complete and tested protocols. The IAB has cast the decision in terms or working on an IP version 7 which is based on CLNP. The intent appears to allow the IAB/IETF to have change control over the particular elements of the protocol which may be required to make changes where technically needed. There appears to be at least an appearance of conflict between a desire to leverage current protocols and infrastructure and the necessity to re-engineer portions of this infrastructure. It was accepted by most of the IESG that CLNP deployment can proceed in a reasonable timeframe and was not a big obstacle. The re-engineering of transport, application, routing, and management protocols needed to maintain current levels of service is expected by the IESG to be a much larger effort that is currently understood. The IESG discussed and agreed that it was important to give this proposed decision public review. ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Schedule a time at the Boston IETF meeting for an open discussion and review of the IAB's proposed recommendation on IP version 7. o IESG ROAD Recommendation The IESG did not have enough time to review the Phill Gross/ Philip Almquist revised Routing recommendation. Those IESG members who had an opportunity to review the work agreed with the overall position and tone of the message and suggested publication in the next few days. ACTION: Gross -- Take editorial input from the IESG and post the IESG recommendation to the IAB as an Internet Draft.