IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE OCTOBER 3RD, 1991 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Attendees - Meeting Notes Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil (iesg-secretary@nri.reston.va.us) for more details on any particular topic. Attendees --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Chiappa, Noel Coya, Steve / CNRI Crocker, Dave / DEC Crocker, Steve / TIS Davin, Chuck / MIT Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / BBN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Borman, David / CRAY Callon, Ross / DEC Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Agenda ------ 1) Administrivia - Bash the Agenda - Review of the Minutes - July 30th - Aug 2nd. - August 8th - August 15th - August 29 - September 5 - September 12 - September 19 - Next Meeting 2) Protocol Actions - Secure Operation of Internet - BGP - Routing Information Protocol - DOD IP Security Option - Bridge MIB - Point to Point Protocol - Ethernet MIB - Common IGP 3) Working Group Actions - IP over ATM Working Group 1. Administrivia 1.1 Bash the Agenda The agenda was approved as written. 1.2 Review of the Minutes The minutes of September 19th were approved. The minutes of July 30th-Aug 2nd, August 8th, August 15th, August 29, September 5, and September 12 will be installed and announced to the IETF ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write and send an announcement of the availability of the IESG minutes. 1.3 Next Meeting: A face to face meeting was schedule for Tuesday evening over dinner. Dave Crocker will make the appropriate arrangements. A teleconference was scheduled for Oct 17th for the regular 12-2 PM time. 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 Secure Operation of the Internet The work of the Security Policy Working Group is now as finished. The effort to write guidelines is one which could be iterated indefinitely, but the current version good and should be published. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a notification to Postel requesting publication of the "Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet" document. 2.2 Border Gateway Protocol The recommendation to publish BGP as a draft standard was sent to the IAB. A discussion is expected at the IAB meeting at Interop, and Hinden and Chiappa have been invited to participate in that discussion. 2.3 Routing Information Protocol The Routing Information Protocol is currently a Draft Standard. It was one of the many protocols grandfathered in an effort begun during the February 1990 IETF meeting. It is now eligible for elevation to Full Standard. RIP does not meet current requirements for Draft of Full Standard according to the current procedures, but the IESG feels this protocol is a defacto standard, and should continue under the grandfathering process. There is discussion on the creation of RIP II, a new protocol based on RIP which is intended at a minimum to carry subnet information. The IESG agreed that this protocol if developed will be a new protocol and have to meet the standards for modern routing protocols, including a MIB. POSITION: RIP II as a new protocol must meet all the requirements of a new modern routing protocol. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a message to the IETF announcing the IESG position in regards to the evolution of RIP. RIP is listed as a "Must Implement" in the Router Requirements document. Currently RIP is not a Full Standard, and is believed by many to be an obsolete protocol. RIP has been included in Router Requirements as an acknowledgement of RIP as the defacto "common" IGP. The IESG discussed whether having two common IGP's was consistent with the intention of the IESG to define "a" common IGP. More importantly, does the declaration of RIP as a common IGP opened up the possibility of declaring IS-IS also a "common" IGP? The IESG agreed that RIP is the current "common" IGP, and OSPF is it's replacement. It is the intention of the IESG to have one IGP, and the listing of RIP in Router Requirements is a pragmatic necessity for real operators until OSPF is widely deployed. POSITION: The IESG intends there to be only one common IGP. OSPF has been designated as the modern IGP to replace RIP as the defacto common IGP. ACTION: Almquist -- Reopen the requirement that RIP be a "MUST" in Router Requirements to confirm that Working Group "really really" wants RIP as a MUST Implement. In a related topic, it has recently been pointed out that many hosts "wiretap" RIP packets to discover their nearest router. In this sense RIP is being used as a router discovery protocol. If this practice is extended to OSPF, it is possible that the amount of information carried by OSPF will dramatically increase. Now that a router discovery protocol has been defined, it is no longer necessary to use routing protocols as router discovery protocols. POSITION: OSPF is not a router discovery protocol. OSPF should not be implemented in hosts for the purpose of router discovery. ACTION: Gross, Chiappa, Almquist -- Insure that the IGP statement explicitly discourages the use of OSPF as a router discover protocol. 2.4 DOD IP Security Option. Progress is being made in the IPSO effort, and the September 30th deadline for resolution of the major items was met. It appears that the IESG linkage of the DOD IP Security option was an effective forcing function. It is expected that an Internet Draft will be published at any time. 2.5) Bridge MIB There is no progress to report in the efforts to coordinate with the IEEE. The IESG agreed that it is not necessary to hold up the current work to align with the IEEE at the proposed standard level. The IESG made a commitment to reopen the question of alignment at the Draft Standard stage. 2.6) Point to Point Protocol. The last call for comments to the IETF list has been met with silence. The IESG took this to mean that there are no outstanding objections to the advancement of PPP to Draft Standard. No progress has been reported in discussion with the working group chairman and the editors of the PPP documents. The IESG has decided that the current author should be listed as the editor, and Drew Perkins should be listed prominently in the Acknowledgements in a manner similar to the BGP document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Encourage a reposting of the PPP documents with the proper authorship information. After receiving the new documents, send a recommendation elevating the protocol to Draft Standard. 2.7) Ethernet MIB The IAB has accepted the Ethernet MIB in it's original form. Any alignment with the IEEE MIB will occur at the Draft Standard stage. ACTION: Davin -- Announce the IAB decision to the SNMP Mailing list. 3) Working Group Actions 3.1) IP over ATM WG The IP over ATM working group has been chartered to define an experimental protocol for running IP over ATM in a local networking environment. Given this limited scope, George Clapp, acting as informal liaison between the IESG and the IEEE felt comfortable with this Working Group. The IESG approved the Charter. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the IP over ATM working Group to the IETF Mailing List. Note: The prospective chair of the IP over ATM working group in consultation with the IETF chair opted to delay the chartering of this working group until after a BOF session could be held at the Santa Fe IETF plenary meeting to more accurately gauge the constituency for this effort.