Minutes interim-1991-iesg-05 1991-09-05 16:00
minutes-interim-1991-iesg-05-199109051600-00

IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

SEPTEMBER 5TH, 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.

Meeting Attendees
-----------------

Borman, David / CRAY
Chiappa, Noel
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

Regrets:

Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Callon, Ross / DEC
Crocker, Dave / DEC
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet

Agenda
------

1) Administrivia
- Bash the Agenda
- Review of the Minutes
- July 30th - Aug 2nd. (Pending Gross's review)
- August 8th (Pending Gross's review)
- August 15th (Pending Gross's review)
- August 29

2) Review of Action Items

3) Protocol Actions
- IGP Statement
- BGP
- Outstanding MIBS
- Ethernet MIB
- Decnet Phase IV over PPP

4) RFC Editor Actions
- Message Send Protocol (Aug 30th Version)
- Security Information Transfer Protocol
- Finger revisions

5) Technical Management Issues
- IETF Management Issues

Minutes
-------

1. Administrivia

1.1 Agenda Bashing

The Agenda was approved as is.

1.2. Approval of Minutes

1.2.1 July 30th - Aug 2nd.

These minutes, the first to be release publicly have been approved by
the IESG pending a review by the Chairman.

1.2.2 August 8th

These minutes have been approved pending review by the Chairman,

1.2.3 August 15th

These minutes have been approved by the IESG with changes. They are
waiting a review by the Chairman,

1.2.4 August 29th

These minutes have been approved by the IESG. They are waiting a
review by the Chairman,

ACTION: Phill Gross -- Review the minutes of the Open Plenary, July
30th, August 8th, August 15th, and August 29th IESG meetings for
public release.

2) Review of Action Items

(89) Apr 25 [Russ Hobby]
Resolve the conflict with the two version of the IMAP
protocol.

The authors have been in a dialogue with Hobby, and some progress has
been made. The authors of both versions of the protocol have agreed
to resolve the problem by declaring a split of the protocol and
renaming each of the resulting protocols. The current obstacle is the
insistence by the author of one version of the IMAP protocol that it
be renamed POP4, a solution not acceptable to the area director.

(130) Jul 11 [Philip Almquist]
Create a finished version of the TOS specification ready to
be published as a Proposed Standard, as soon as possible.

This is a continuing action.

(136) Jul 11 [Steve Coya]
Write a chapter explaining the IETF structure, including the
IAB and IESG for the Technical Evolution Plan.

Concluded. This was completed some time ago.

(140) Jul 18 [Steve Coya]
Explore the use of MMCONF for IESG teleconferences.
Specifically, explore the availability and work-arounds for
using MMCONF on non-SUN based systems.

Continuing. The IESG discussed the possibility of declaring this
excessively difficult, but most of the IESG felt that it was important
to push on technology. MMCONF if it lives up to it's potential can
make telephone conferences much better.

(141) Jul 18 [Greg Vaudreuil, Joyce Reynolds]
Insure that the NISI working group charter is updated to
reflect the addition of the following work item; write a
document explaining the security issues of privacy and
accuracy in Internet Databases.

This is still pending.

(143) Jul 18 [Noel Chiappa]
Chat with Geoff Stewart of Hale and Dore about continuing the
research into the liability of standards making bodies.

This is still pending.

(144) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker]
Combine or rationalize the proposed security campaign with
the security are plan.

This is still pending.

(146) Jul 18 [Steve Coya, Greg Vaudreuil]
Write the definitive IETF Handbook, to include material
currently available in the guidelines to working group
chairman, the guidelines to authors of internet drafts, and
various draft IESG and IAB standards process documents.

This is still pending.

(148) Jul 18 [Ross Callon]
Send a more definitive explanation on the current status of
the X.500 documents than is likely to recorded by the
beleaguered IESG-Secretary in these minutes.

Concluded: Callon sent a review of the documents to the IESG August 29th.

(149) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker]
Assign a SAAG person to provide security guidance to the
Point to Point working group.

Concluded: Dave Balenson has been assigned to the PPP working group to
provide guidance.

(150) Jul 18 [Steve Coya]
Draft a sample, generic letter to be used by corporations to
give the IAB control over the future evolution of a
particular protocol.

This is still pending.

(151) Jul 18 [Steve Crocker]
Insure that the Common Authentication Technology charter is
modified to reflect work related to the SPX protocol.

Concluded: This was completed shortly after this meeting.

(153) Jul 25 [Steve Crocker]
Resolve the issues surrounding the IP Security Option and
make the right thing happen.

There is a September 30th deadline for constructive input. If no
constructive feedback is provided to the IESG, this will be dropped as
an active issue for the IESG.

(155) Jul 25 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Schedule a discussion on the evolution of existing standards
in a upcoming IESG meeting.

This is OBE. The IESG has agreed for now not to make a "Fast Track"
for new versions of existing standards.

(157) Jul 25 [Phill Gross, Susan Estrada]
Explore the need for an operations DNS working group, and if
needed, find a chair and write a charter for a DNS operation
meeting, where close coordination with the protocol group is
explicitly specified.

This is continuing.

(160) Aug 02 [Steve Coya]
Write up the mechanisms for working groups to request or
receive directorate support.

This is continuing.

(162) Aug 02 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Schedule a discussion in an upcoming IESG meeting on
mechanisms for registering distinguished names.

This is continuing. This particular action was combined with action
181 and reassigned to Russ Hobby and Greg Vaudreuil.

(163) Aug 02 [Noel Chiappa, Bob Hinden]
Investigate the progress and direction of the IPLPDN working
group and report to the IESG.

This is continuing.

(165) Aug 08 [Russ Hobby]
Write a note to the RFC Editor expressing the sense of the
IESG in regard to the IMAP protocols.

Concluded. While the final resolution of this issue is not yet in
hand, the RFC Editor has been told of the IESG position that the IMAP
protocol be declared to have split.

(166) Aug 08 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Set up a teleconference for a 11 AM EST conference call on
Ethernet MIB between Kastenholtz, Rose, Davin, Case, Gross,
Vaudreuil, and Chiappa.

OBE. Discussions within the IAB and the SNMP mailing list make this
teleconference unneeded.

(173) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Talk to author of the Multi-protocol Interconnect document
about the name of this document; report results to IESG.

Concluded. A dialogue with Carolyn Brown began and she is responsive
in making changes as requested.

(174) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Talk to the author of the Inverse ARP protocol about the need
for a section documenting the design criterion and rational
for the Inverse ARP protocol.

Concluded. Carolyn Brown has been notified, and she has made changes
to the document.

(176) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby]
Review the Message Send Protocol for the RFC Editor before
August 27th.

See discussion later in these minutes.

(177) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby]
Look at the list of enhancements for the Finger protocol and
determine if these should be corrected in this re-release.

Done. The two clarifications suggested to the Finger protocol should
be made in this latest editing pass of the document.

(178) Aug 15 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Schedule time in a future teleconference to discuss the
wisdom of running SNMP only over UDP.

This is continuing.

(179) Aug 15 [Dave Borman]
Get a copy of the UCL TCP proposal and distribute it to the
IESG.

Concluded. Borman has a copy of this proposal, but it is hardcopy. A
fax will be sent to any IESG member requesting a copy. The basic
proposal was outlined to the IESG in an earlier teleconference and email.

(180) Aug 15 [Phill Gross]
Request a formal vote and if the TCP extensions fails, a
public notification with detailed reasons for rejection.

OBE: Further discussion with the IAB has clarified the status of the
document. The IESG sent a message to the IETF list withdrawing the
protocol from IAB consideration.

(181) Aug 15 [Russ Hobby, Steve Crocker]
Organize an agenda for the Distinguished Name Teleconference.
Work with Vaudreuil to schedule an appropriate time.

This is continuing. Russ Hobby is to take the lead on this action.

(183) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Send the notice withdrawing the IESG recommendation elevating
the TCP extensions to the IAB with a CC to the IETF.

Concluded: The message has been sent to the IAB and IETF.

(184) Aug 29 [Phill Gross]
Publish the latest draft of the BGP usage document as an
Internet-Draft.

Continuing: See discussion later in these minutes.

(185) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Send the IAB a query soliciting input on the IP over Frame
Relay document. If no objections are raised to the current
document, send the recommendation with the new title to the
IAB Thursday the September 12th.

The query has been sent. Limited response from the IAB has been
received. The comment period will remain open till September 12th.

(186) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Contact the author of the Inverse ARP document and relate the
specific comments of the IESG, encouraging the writing of a
more complete rationale section.

Continuing: The author has been notified, but the specific comments
from the IESG are still being formulated in dialogue with the IAB.

(187) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ietf-osids-replication-03> as an Informational
document.

This is still pending.

(188) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Confirm that the FOX directory Pilot participants have been
kept involved in the IETF directory efforts.

Concluded: FOX participants have been involved with this effort. FOX
folks will send specific comments on the documents by the end of the
month.

(189) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ietf-osids-replsoln-03> as a Proposed Standard.

This is still pending.

(190) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ucl-kille-networkaddresses-04> as a Proposed Standard.

This is still pending.

(191) Aug 29 [Ross Callon]
Insure that the relevant section of ``An interim approach to
use of Network Addresses'' document referring to X.25 NSAP's
be edited. (????)

This is still pending.

(192) Aug 29 [Phill Gross]
Write an applicability statement for ``Using the OSI
Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming''.

This is still pending.

(193) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ietf-osids-friendlynaming-02> as a Proposed Standard.

This is still pending.

(194) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ietf-osids-cosinex500-05> as a Proposed Standard.

This is still pending.

(195) Aug 29 [Greg Vaudreuil]
Write a recommendation to publish
<draft-ucl-kille-x500domains-03> as a Proposed Standard.

This is still pending.

(196) Aug 29 [Steve Crocker]
Send a note to Postel and the author of the Message Send
Protocol pointing out the IESG concerns about security, and
include suggested text to satisfy the IESG.

Concluded: This was done in force, with supporting notes from the SAAG.

The IESG briefly discussed the format of the action items, and agreed
that actions items should include a due date as well as the assign
date. It was also mentioned that a status section may help with the
review for those actions which are "on hold" waiting for an external
action.

3) Technical Management Issues

3.1 IGP Statement

The IGP statement was posted prior to the last IETF meeting and was
reviewed in the Open Plenary session. It has been an Internet Draft
for over a month, and it is now ready for publication as an
Applicability Statement.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Compose a recommendation to elevate the IGP
Applicability Statement. Due Date: Sept 12.

3.2 Many Mibs

Final edits were made to the four MIBs ready for advancement. These
MIBs are: FDDI, Bridge, Remote Monitoring, and Decnet Phase IV. The
latest versions have been posted as Internet Drafts and are ready for
RFC publication.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write recommendations with Chuck Davin to publish
FDDI, Bridge, Remote Monitoring, and Decnet Phase MIBs as proposed
standards. Due Date: September 12th.

3.3 Ethernet MIB

The IAB proposed a compromise position on the Ethernet MIB, which will
facilitate publication of the existing document as a proposed
standard, while requiring interaction with the relevant 802 committees
and requests specific implementation experience.

The proposal is as follows:

1. Publish the Ethernet Mib document as a Proposed Standard
IN THE FORM ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE IESG.

2. Request the Ethernet-MIB working group to prepare an explanation
of the reasons for making mandatory those variables that are optional
in the IEEE802.3 standard. Included in such a statement should be
examples of implementation in silicon vs. software, and usage.

3. Forward a copy of the Proposed Standard MIB with this explanation
to the chairman of IEEE802.3, as a contribution to IEEE802.3.

Also include an explicit invitation for members and reviewers of
IEEE802.3 to participate in the IETF WG, to ensure that it
represents all available Ethernet expertise.

4. Strongly encourage the IETF working group to reconcile differences
regarding mandatory MIB variables with the IEEE802.3 committee,
prior to requesting advancement to Draft Standard status.

5. Recommend to that Working Group that, prior to requesting advancement
to Draft Standard status, it prepare for the IAB a document
summarizing field experience with the disputed variables, especially
demonstrating the benefits of using the disputed variables.

The IESG discussed the best way to reach consensus in the working
group on this issue. While the mailing list allows for discussion, it
is difficult to ascertain that consensus has been reached. The IESG
discussed this at length (See discussion later in these minutes) and
agreed that the Los Alamos meeting is the best place to reach
consensus. Discussion on the mailing list and comments are solicited
prior to that meeting.

ACTION: Davin -- Take the IAB proposal for resolution of the Ethernet
MIB situation to the working group as a proposal to be discussed at
the Los Alamos IETF.

3.4 DECnet Phase IV over PPP

The DECnet Phase IV over the Point to Point Protocol has been
submitted to the IESG for consideration as a proposed standard. The
IESG has not had time to review this document, and so consideration
was deferred till the next meeting. Because this document was sent to
the IESG by the author, Vaudreuil took an action to confirm that this
was in fact approved and was being recommended by the PPP working group.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Confirm that the PPP Working Group has reviewed
the DECnet Phase IV over PPP document. Due Date: Sept 12th.

3.5 PPP LLC and IP over PPP documents

The Point to Point Protocol Working Group submitted the two PPP
documents to be published as a Draft Standard. The IESG discussed
these documents in terms of the requirements for elevation to Draft
Standard. The documents accurately reflect changes made to current
implementations to fix "holes" in the original state machine. It was
not clear to the IESG whether all aspects of the documents have been
implemented and tested, specifically synchronous operation. If these
documents have not been fully implemented, they may need to be
republished as Proposed Standards.

ACTION: Chiappa -- Check with Brian Lloyd about the extent of the
implementations of the PPP documents, specifically whether synchronous
operation is supported by any current implementation. Due Date: Sept 12.

3.6 BGP Usage Document

Phill Gross has an outstanding action to publish the usage Document as
an Internet Draft. There is no progress to report. Yakov Rekhter has
reviewed the edits and finds them acceptable.

4) RFC Editor Actions

4.1 Message Send Protocol

Steve Crocker and the SAAG have been in dialogue with the author of
the Message Send Protocol. An issue of security has been raised in
this protocol. While the document is experimental, there is a strong
feeling that at least a disclaimer should be placed in the document.
Suggested text has been sent to the author.

The IESG completed it's review of this protocol.

Action: Vaudreuil -- Notify the RFC Editor that the IESG has reviewed
the Message Send Protocol and recommends that text be added to the
document plainly identifying the security shortcoming of the document.

4.2 Security Information Transfer Protocol

The IESG received the Security Information Transfer Protocol from
the RFC editor. It is the clear intention of the author to make this
protocol a standard of some sort. While the IESG has some initial
objections to the protocol as it is currently written, the author has
expressed a willingness to work within the IETF framework to advance
this document towards standards status. To date the author has posted
the document as an Internet Draft. The IESG will begin a survey to
determine whether this document has the constituency and necessity and
whether it is consistent with the Internet Architecture to be pushed
though the process.

ACTION: S. Crocker -- Work with the author of the Security Information
Transfer Protocol to determine the constituency and necessity of this
protocol. Report findings to the IESG.

ACTION: G. Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor that the author
of the Security Information Transfer Protocol wishes to advance this
document though the standards process and has begun a dialogue with
the IETF community.

4.3 Finger

The RFC Editor sent the IESG a new version of the Finger document.
This new version is intended to be republished as a Draft Standard.
Several typographical and syntactic changes made to make the protocol
better reflect current implementations. Comments from an implementor
have identified several additional points that the IESG felt should be
addressed in this revision. The order of particular operations in the
previous document was not specified, and the length of the transaction
was not specified. With these two changes, the IESG approve this
document for republication as a Draft Standard.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the RFC Editor that the Finger protocol
should be republished as a Draft standard with two additional changes
mailed earlier to the author and RFC Editor.

5. Technical Management Issues

Several issues have been raised on the IETF mailing list in the past
week. Among these issues was the difficulty of reaching consensus on
electronic mailing lists.

A discussion triggered in part by discord in the SMTP extensions
working group has been brought to the IETF mailing list. Often there
is a dis-continuity between the apparent consensus on a mailing list
and the apparent consensus in a face to face meeting. Because these
two groups may be composed of different actor, it is often difficult
to reach closure. The question asked was: "Can the IETF use
electronic mail as a means to do business and reach consensus?". The
IESG found the discussion interesting and reached the following
tentative position.

POSITION: Mailing lists are vital for input and participation of the
IETF working groups, however, face to face meetings are more efficient
at negotiating and reaching consensus. When a conflict arises on a
mailing list which cannot be resolved in a face to face meeting due to
the inability of a principle to travel, the chairman has the
obligation to act as the mediator and break the impasse.

There was some thought that a formalization of the IETF rules under
the Internet Society may help resolve some of these issues. After a
period of debate the IESG felt that the IETF should work toward
resolving procedural problems in it's traditional fashion until the
articles of incorporation can be worked out between the IAB and the
Internet Society.

ACTION: Coya -- Get a copy of the draft articles of incorporation sent
to the IESG next Tuesday 10th and invite Cerf and Chapin to the
Teleconference to discuss the draft document. Due Date Sept 11th.