INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) November 9, 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-9528103 For more information please contact the IESG Secretary at . ATTENDEES --------- Alvestrand, Harald / Uninett Bradner, Scott / Harvard Carpenter, Brian / CERN (IAB Liaison) Coya, Steve / CNRI Kastenholz, Frank / FTP Software Klensin, John / MCI Kostick, Deirdre / AT&T Bell Labs Mankin, Allison / ISI Mockapetris, Paul / @home O'Dell, Mike / UUNET Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Schiller, Jeff / MIT Thomson, Susan / Bellcore Regrets ------- Halpern, Joel / Newbridge Networks Rekhter, Yakov / cisco (IAB Liaison) Minutes ------- 1. The minutes of the October 26 teleconference were approved. Coya to place in IETF Shadow directories. 2. The IESG decided to return An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Format to the working group to address concerns over IPv6 address space lengths and the need to specify the size of the registry each subscriber receives. Harald had additional comments that he is to send to Scott and Allison. Scott and Allison will convey these items to the working group. 3. The IESG deferred action on Address Allocation for Private Internets , opting to return it to the Working Group for additional text. Concern was raised about the use of multiple DNS (internal and external) systems, and the need to provide more information on how to handle. O'Dell to provide text to be returned to the Working Group. Allison raised the issue that not enough text is provided to prevent internal addresses being propagated outside the environment (use of term "strongly recommended" needs to be changed to "shall/must" when discussing packet or routing filters. Allison will send her comments/recommendations to the IESG list. The OPS Area directors will convey all this to the cidrd working group. 4. The IESG decided to return IPv6 Address Allocation Management to the IAB, asking for additional text which states whether the IANA can take back an allocation from a registry and, if so, text to document the procedures for doing so. 5. The IESG deferred action on the set of SNMPv2 protocol actions. The consensus was that continued investigation and deliberation was mandated, and will consider establishing an independent group to review the matter and outline the basic technical issues. The IESG also agreed to the idea of designating a neutral individual to access the comments raised pertaining to process issues. Paul took the action item of identifying two reviewers, one to focus on technical issues, the other to investigate the comments on procedural issues. Paul also asked the IESG to send him recommendations. Paul is to draft a note to the IETF conveying the above information, and send it to the IESG for review. Once approved, Coya to forward to the IETF Announcement list. Discussions will be held during the IETF meeting in Dallas, probably during the open Network Management Area meeting, and the IESG Open Plenary on Thursday. 6. The IESG approved the creation of the Application Mib (applmib) Working Group in the Network Management Area. Coya to send announcement when the email archive information is provided. 7. The IESG approved the publication of the following documents as Experimental Protocols: o The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type o Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type o SGML Media Types Coya to send announcement. 8. Allison mentioned she wanted the RSVP WG to review Mobile Mesh Networking , which was submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication as an Informational RFC. She will contact the author, and Steve will send a note to the RFC Editor with IESG text to be inserted if the author declines the offer of RSVP review and requests publication. 9. Harald was volunteered to serve as liaison to the Nominations Committee. 10. Frank reported that the PPPEXT WG was interested in pursuing the publication of a specification for running PPP in Frame Relay. Following a brief review on the history of this effort, particularly the previous submission of two separate documents for standards track action, the IESG reiterated its position that if the WG wanted to submit a single specification, it should do so. If more than one specification is submitted, each must contain references to each other, and the IESG might require an applicability statement.