IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE March 5th, 1992 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Attendees - Meeting Notes Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information. ATTENDEES --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Chiappa, Noel Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / BBN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore AGENDA ------ 1. Administrivia 1.1 Bash the Agenda 1.2 Approval of the Minutes 1.2.1 February 6th, 1992 1.2.2 February 20th, 1992 1.3 Next Meeting 2. Review of Action Items 3. Protocol Actions On the IESG Plate 3.1 TCP Large Windows. 3.2 Frame Relay MIB (Chuck Davin) 3.3 Network Fax On IAB Plate, IESG attention needed. 3.4 X.400 4. RFC Editor Actions 4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes 4.2 Message Send Protocol 5. Technical Management Issues 5.1 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol (S. Crocker) 5.2 Report from the ROAD Group (PG) 5.3 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy 5.4 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG) 5.5 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker) 5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker) 5.7 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker) 5.8 OSI Integration or Multiprotocol Integration? 5.9 Working Group Ownership of Standards 5.10 EUnet Objection to MIME. 6. IESG Technical Evolution document. 7. Working Group Actions 7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferenceing (avt) 7.2 User Documents II (userdoc2) 7.3 BGP Deployment (bgpdepl) 7.4 Chassis MIB (chassis) 7.5 Network Access Server Requirements (nasreq) MINUTES ------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Bash Agenda The IESG decided to focus on ROAD discussions, as well as the question about "ownership" of standards. 1.2 Approval of minutes The minutes of the February 6th Teleconference were approved. Additional clarification is need on the minutes of the 20th, and approval was deferred until the next meeting. 1.3 Next Meeting The IESG plans to meet twice during the IETF Plenary in San Diego. They will meet for lunch Wednesday, and dinner Thursday night after the Open Plenary session. Proposed topics include mail related protocols and related issues. 2. Review of Action Items The action items were reviewed by Email prior to this meeting. Chuck Davin requested IESG attention for his outstanding action item to begin the process of evolving the SNMP protocol. 3. Protocol Actions 3.1 TCP Extensions for High Performance The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft for Proposed Standard Status. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to publish the internet draft "TCP Extensions for High Performance" as a Proposed Standard. A comment was sent to the IETF list in response to the last call. The comment was satisfactorily resolved by Dave Borman. The IESG briefly discussed the need to respond officially respond to last call comments. POSITION: All comments sent to the IESG or IETF in response to a Last Call should receive an official response, either by the IESG as a whole or the relevant Area Director, 3.2 Frame Relay MIB (Chuck Davin) The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft for publication as a Proposed Standard. This document reflects minor changes from the version 05 originally referenced in the last call. A second last call has been issued, and no comments were received. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to publish the internet draft "Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs" as a Proposed Standard. 3.3 Network Fax The IESG agreed to recommend the Internet Draft for publication as a Proposed Standard. The objections raised by the IESG were adequately addressed by the working group with editorial changes. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send to the IAB a recommendation to publish the internet draft "A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet" as a Proposed Standard. 3.4 X.400 Documents The IAB has requested discussion with the IESG on the proper Working Group "ownership" of to X.400 specification, "X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading" and "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822". These documents were submitted to the IETF by Steve Hardcastle-Kille, and after review by the IETF were recommended to the IAB. The IESG has allowed independent submissions to the standards process with adequate IETF review. In this case, a BOF was called during the Santa Fe Plenary to review the document. The document has also been reviewed by RARE Working Group 1. The IAB has insisted that a Working Group be designated as the forum for future evolution of this protocol. The IAB has also asked for confirmation that the author is willing to cede change control to the IAB. Because this document is the product of the efforts of many groups, including RARE WG1 and the IETF as a whole, the IESG resisted placing the document in an existing IETF working group. After discussion, the IESG agreed to pursue chartering the RARE Working Group 1 jointly as a IETF working group. This step, similar to the joint chartering of two TSIG working groups as IETF working groups was seen as reasonable. RARE WG's are open to all participants, and do not require formal "membership". While RARE "members" receive funding to attend, this does not preclude others from participating. ACTION: Gross -- Present the IESG plan to charter the Rare WG1 as an IETF working group as response to the IAB's request for a Working Group "home" for the X.400 documents from Steve Hardcastle-Kille. POSITION: The IESG endorses the practice of jointly chartering Working Groups with other organizations for the purposes of standardization. To qualify, these working groups must meet the IETF requirements for openness, reporting, and participation. The IESG strongly encourages such groups to meet periodically at IETF Plenary meetings. 4.0 RFC Editor Actions 4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes The author has been asked to clarify the intended status of this document. It is unclear whether this is a standard track submission or an experimental protocol. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Resend the query to the author of the "Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes" document and Cc the RFC Editor and IESG. 4.2 Message Send Protocol The IESG has received a request from Jon Postel to clarify the current status of this document. An IESG response was sent to the RFC Editor December 10th indicating the IESG displeasure with the document. The IESG during the January 2nd teleconference reconsidered that message, and assigned Steve Crocker the action to craft text which would satisfy the IESG. This action continues. The IESG agreed that this action has persisted too long and agreed to allow the document be published as is, even though flawed. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Communicate the IESG position on the document "Message Send Protocol" to the RFC Editor. In particular, notify the Editor that the document can be published in it's current form. 5.0 Technical Management Issues 5.2 Report from the ROAD Group The ROAD ad-hoc working party is close to completing their charter to find "A solution" to the pressing requirements to extend the routing and addressing architecture to support continued Internet Growth. The pressing need to make forward progress in addressing the immanent addressing and routing problems necessitate quick action, starting at the San Diego IETF meeting. The ROAD Group was chartered to provide at least one workable strawman. The IESG expressed a strong desire that the hard, groundbreaking work of the ROAD group, be presented to the IETF community in such a manner that it can, without excessive delay and rehash, serve as a starting point for the large engineering effort to solve the global routing and addressing problems. To accomplish this difficult charter the work was conducted in a necessarily closed environment to reach closure on a specific proposal in a short period of time. It is the role of the IESG to manage the process by which the ROAD proposals may be translated into Working Groups. IETF acceptance of the ROAD proposals requires community buy-in. This buy in can only occur with a through review of the specific options considered by the ROAD group, any other credible proposals offered, and a through understanding of the options chosen by the group. To this end, a plenary presentation and a series of BOF's have been scheduled during the San Diego IETF Plenary to describe the concluding of the ROAD group. To apply the constructive input of the ROAD group, the IESG recommends early and wide dissemination of as much of the ROAD work as possible. Review of the proposals before the IETF meeting will allow constructive exploration and criticism of the ROAD approaches at the IETF meeting, and hopefully result in specific working groups to begin work on solutions. 7.0 Working Group Actions 7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferenceing (avt) The IESG reviewed approved the latest version of the Audio/Video Teleconferenceing charter. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the Audio Video Teleconferencing Working Group to the IETF. 7.2 User Documents II (userdoc2) The IESG reviewed and approved the User Documents II charter. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the User Documents II Working Group to the IETF. 7.3 BGP Deployment (bgpdepl) The IESG discussed the BGP Deployment charter. The IESG agreed that the mailing list should be separate from the IWG mailing list. The charter was approved pending the submission of a new working group mailing list. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the BGP Deployment Working Group to the IETF after a new email address is provided. 7.4 Chassis MIB (chassis) The IESG reviewed and approved the Chassis MIB charter. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the Chassis MIB Working Group to the IETF. 7.5 NAS Requirements. (nasreq) The IESG discussed the proposed NAS charter. The charter is too general and need to be refined. A BOF is scheduled for the IETF meeting and will provide an opportunity to refine the charter. ACTION: Hobby, Estrada : Attend the NAS BOF and provide guidance in the drafting of their charter. Topics Held over Until the Next Meeting 5.1 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol (S.Crocker) 5.3 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy 5.4 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG) 5.5 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker) 5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker) 5.7 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker) 5.8 OSI Integration or Multiprotocol Integration? 5.9 WG Ownership of Standards 5.10 EUnet Objection to MIME.