Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1992-iesg-07 1992-03-19 17:00
minutes-interim-1992-iesg-07-199203191700-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1992-03-19 17:00
Title Minutes interim-1992-iesg-07 1992-03-19 17:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1992-iesg-07-199203191700-00
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT OF THE MEETING OF

    March 19th, 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 / SUN
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

    IAB Guests
    -----------
    Hans Werner Braun / SDSC
    Lyman Chapin /BBN
    Jon Postel / ISI

    Agenda

    1. Planing for IETF Growth
    1.1 Protocol Quality Control
    1.2 Area Director Work Load
    1.3 Secretariat Support
    1.4 Working Group Management

    2. Interaction with the Coalition for Network Information (CNI)

    3. Internationalization

    4. Ownership of Standards

    5. Common Services
    1.1 RPC
    1.2 International Character Sets

    6. Road Group Follow-up
    1.1 Class B and C Net Number Assignment Policies
    1.2 New Working Group Formation.

    Minutes
    -------

    1. Planning for IETF Growth

    The IETF is facing a continuing period of growth. With this growth
    an increase of management attention is needed to insure consistent
    high quality, and to avoid dropping important items.

    1.1 Protocol Quality Control

    The number of protocols that the IETF is creating is rising rapidly.
    The IESG is responsible for reviewing each of these protocols and
    insuring that they meet a standard of quality. To better support
    the IESG's increasing workload, better tracking and reporting must
    be done by the Secretariat.

    ACTION: Coya -- Document the IESG standards process identifying the
    various states a document may be in. Incorporate this information into
    the IETF tracking system. Status information should be made available
    in IETF directories and included in the IMR.

    1.2 Area Director Work Load

    The IESG members are volunteers. With the increase in the number of
    Working Groups, and the increased activity across the IETF, the work
    load on Area Directors is high. It is currently difficult for an
    Area Director to track the progress of work in his/her area. The
    IETF Secretariat maintains a database of current status, but there
    is little reporting of activities.

    Many members were unclear about what their responsibilities are to
    review work in other IETF Areas. Some felt responsible only for
    their area while others felt responsible for all IESG work. After
    discussion, the IESG agreed that the primary responsibility is for
    the AD's respective area, with a secondary responsibility to aid in
    the review of work in other areas where needed.

    It was noted that the IESG spends a large amount of time working on
    defining the process. The procedures are created on an as needed
    basis anytime a special case arises. It was suggested that a
    "procedures" retreat be called to document at once the procedures of
    the IESG, but no immediate plans were made. A strong first step
    would be to document the current understanding of the process.

    ACTION: Hobby, Stockman, Coya, Dave Crocker, and Huizer -- Write the
    current IESG Operational procedures into the IETF Handbook.

    1.3 Secretariat Support

    The IESG discussed the tracking requirements, and agreed that
    reporting current status needs to be improved. The Area Directors
    agreed that a notification of expired goals and milestones report,
    and a protocol action report would be helpful. There is a sense that
    the IETF Secretariat is short of resources for aiding the IESG. A
    comprehensive examination of the secretariat operation was not
    possible during this meeting, however, there was a desire for a
    fuller understanding of the actual work done in the secretariat.

    ACTION: Coya -- Identify those areas where work in unable to be
    completed due to lack of resources.

    1.4 Working Group Management

    One aspect of IETF growth that the IESG felt it could begin to
    control is the proliferation of Working Groups. Working Groups are
    forming at a rate much higher that their rate of conclusion. While
    these new Working Groups have good merit, there was a sense that
    there should be a higher hurdle to formation. The current hurdle to
    formation is already larger that it has been traditionally. The
    charters are now reviewed by the IESG and IAB in addition to the
    review of the Area Director prior to chartering. Groups interested
    in forming a Working Group are encouraged to hold a BOF session at
    the IETF Plenary sessions to demonstrate community interest in the
    topic.

    Working Group charters are only recently being written in such a
    manner that purpose of the group is specific, and the goals and
    milestones can be tracked. This has led to the creeping, ever
    expanding working group charter. Better management of specific
    groups is needed.

    The number of BOF's are also increasing at IETF meetings in addition
    to the number of Working Groups. By raising the hurdle for working
    group formation, the IESG has encouraged BOF sessions. Several
    groups have opted to meet repeatedly as BOF's rather than charter as
    Working Groups. The IESG is concerned by this practice and
    discussed, but did not adopt a specific restriction that a group may
    meet only once at IETF as a BOF.

    One aspect to the increasing number of working group sessions is the
    growing attendance at IETF meetings. Working Groups are
    increasingly spending time educating the newcomer in both the
    procedures and the technical content of a group. While other formal
    standards bodies have specific rules to deal with newcomers, the
    IETF has relied upon strong chairman to insure the group makes
    progress. The ability to control the meeting is affected by the
    understanding for the rules and guidelines. These are automatically
    being sent to all new IETF Working Group Chairmen.

    2. Internationalization

    The IESG discussed the need for closer interaction with non-US
    attendees. The goal of an European meetings was greeted by all with
    approval. The current logistical question is one of funding.
    Attending European meetings are significantly more expensive for US
    attendees that the same meeting in the US.

    The IESG discussed the perceived requirement that IETF working
    groups meet at least once at an IETF plenary session. This is
    encouraged to give a working group the broadest exposure within the
    IETF, however, this practice, especially for OSI Integration groups
    tends to have the appearance of "Paying Homage to Caesar". Many (if
    not most) OSI experts are European, and most are unable to travel
    out of country. The IESG affirmed the policy that Working Groups,
    while encouraged to meet at IETF plenaries, are not required to do
    so.

    Erik Huizer briefed the IESG on the current reorganization of the
    RARE technical bodies. Rare appears to be talking on a structure
    roughly analogous to the IETF/IESG/IAB structure, with the analogue
    for IETF Areas, each for specific applications. The current Working
    Groups, analogous to IETF areas, are File Transfer, Directory Users
    Services and Support, Connection Oriented/Connectionless
    Interworking, VTAM and X-Windows over OSI, ATM/ High Speed
    Networking, and Security and Network Management.

    ACTION: Huizer -- Prepare a preliminary outline of a report on
    internationalization to serve as a starting point to help the IESG
    prepare such a report for the IAB on.

    3. Proposal for Joint X.500 CNI Work

    The Coalition for Network Information has asked the IESG via Joyce
    Reynolds, to consider working together to develop X.500 applications
    and standards such as WAIS. After discussing the proposal, the IESG
    agreed that coordination is a good goal, but that the IETF did not
    have the resources to designate a specific liaison person. CNI is
    welcome to attend IETF meetings and participate in the relevant
    X.500 Working Groups.

    4. Ownership of Standards

    The IAB and IESG have been engaged in discussions on the proper
    "home" for protocols in the standards process. The IESG has
    traditionally disbanded working groups after the publication of the
    Proposed Standard, leaving the responsibility for evolving the
    protocol to the IESG or the IETF as a whole. This practice has come
    under criticism in the context of protocols which originate outside
    the IETF and have no originating working group. Several advantages
    can be gained by continuing a working groups existence indefinitely,
    including providing a forum for implementors to exchange
    experiences, and to assume responsibility for the progression
    through the standards track.

    There was a sense that the act of forming an IETF working group
    requires significant scarce resources that may be better utilized.
    Recognizing that IETF review need to be proportional to community
    interest, it was unwilling to create a new policy that all standards
    must originate from an IETF working group.

    TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED

    5. Common Services

    6. ROAD Work