Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1993-iesg-08 1993-03-08 16:30
minutes-interim-1993-iesg-08-199303081630-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1993-03-08 16:30
Title Minutes interim-1993-iesg-08 1993-03-08 16:30
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1993-iesg-08-199303081630-00
											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING

    March 8th, 1993

    Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary

    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 8820945.

    For more information please contact the IESG Secretary.
    iesg-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------

    Almquist, Philip / Consultant
    Crocker, Dave / SGI
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

    IAB Liaison
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Christian Huitema / INRIA

    Regrets

    Borman, David / Cray Research
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore

    AGENDA
    ------
    1) Administrivia
    o Role Call
    o Bash the Agenda
    o Approval of the Minutes
    - February 22, 1993
    - March 8th

    2) Protocol Actions
    o Path MTU Discovery <Draft>
    o IESG Advice from Experience with Path
    MTU Discovery <Informational RFC>
    o RFC 1327 tutorial <informational RFC>
    o IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB <Draft>
    o IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB <historic>

    3) Management Issues
    o Query sent to SNMP Working Group members
    o SNMP Security/v2
    o Router Requirements
    o The US Domain, Farnet, and NWnet
    o MIBs in Waiting

    4) Working Group Actions
    o Authorization and Access Control (aac)

    5) Tasked Items
    o Summarize the New IP Discussions
    o New IPLPDN charter & milestones
    o Secure FTP

    MINUTES
    -------

    1) Administriva

    o Approval of the Minutes

    Discussion and approval of the minutes of both the March 1st and the
    February 22nd teleconferences was deferred.

    o Next Meeting

    The next IESG teleconference was scheduled for Thursday, March 18th,
    from 11:30 to 1:30 ET.

    2) Protocol Actions

    o MTU Discovery

    The IESG reviewed the MTU Discovery Protocol as documented in
    RFC1191. This protocol is widely implemented and is in use in the
    operational Internet. A known operational problem is documented in
    a companion document "IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU
    Discovery". The IESG approved this protocol for elevation to Draft
    Standard and the companion document was recommended for publication
    as an Informational RFC.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the IESG approval of the MTU Discovery
    Protocol as a Draft Standard.

    o RFC 1327 Tutorial

    This document is a tutorial on the X.400 <=> RFC 822 mail gateway.
    Consideration was deferred until the next IESG meeting to review the
    document.

    o Token Ring MIB

    The IESG discussed the urgency of considering the Token Ring MIB in
    the absence of a Network Management Area Director. This protocol
    has been a proposed standard for over two years and requires review,
    but there is not strong pressure to elevate it immediately. The
    IESG agreed to put a review of this protocol on hold pending
    appointment of a new Area Director.

    o Token Bus MIB

    The IESG agreed that the Token Bus MIB could be moved to Historic
    without having an Network Management Area Director.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send out a ballot to the IESG to move the Token
    Bus MIB to Historic.

    3) Management

    o SNMP Working Group Query

    Erik Huizer sent out a query to the SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security
    Working Groups soliciting comments on the process by which these
    proposals were submitted and reviewed. Specific comments were made
    about the steering group management, the split of security into a
    separate working group, and the compressed timeline, but the
    comments were generally positive and indicated that the current
    process should continue. A full summary of this query is included
    as an Appendix.

    Until the SNMP working groups submit the protocols to the IESG,
    there is no further action for the IESG.

    o Working Group Management

    Well defined procedures for working groups to follow will help
    answer specific questions about the standardization process. Erik
    Huizer has posted an initial document with these procedures and will
    incorporate lessons learned from the SNMP Evolution process.

    ACTION: Huizer - Revise the draft of the Working Group guidelines
    document in light of the SNMP Evolution process and incorporating
    revisions suggested by Gross and DCrocker.

    o US Domain

    Issues about the management of the .us domain were taken off the
    agenda and will be discussed within the Operations Area. It is not
    clear there are issues needing IESG attention.

    o Router Requirements

    The editor of the Router Requirements documents was contacted and
    gave a brief status update. The documents are under significant
    revision, including the splitting of the main document into four and
    incorporating changes necessary due to the passing of time. There
    are a few technical details still to work out and it is not expected
    that this work will be concluded in the next few weeks. The IESG
    explored options of posting the current documents again as Internet
    Drafts but reached no firm conclusions about whether the documents
    which are almost ready should be posted immediately or whether the
    documents should all be posted as a set. Discussion will continue
    at the next meeting.

    o Many Mibs

    There are several MIBs which have been submitted to the IESG for
    consideration as Proposed Standard but for which the Area Director
    review has not been completed. The IESG agreed that advancing these
    MIBS can be put on hold until a new Network Management Area Director
    is appointed.

    4) Working Group Actions

    o Authentication and Access Control (aac)

    The charter was not received by the IESG and needs to be resent
    before it can be considered.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Resent the aac charter to the IESG and IAB for
    consideration as a Working Group.

    5) Tasked Items

    o New IP Status Check

    The list of New IP contenders has risen to five with the inclusion
    of Robert Ullmann's IPv7 proposal. The feedback from the IETF
    suggests that the list of contenders should not be artificially
    pruned, but that the proposals be evaluated based on some metric of
    progress. The immediate question facing the IESG is the allocation
    of presentation time at the March IETF meeting. Rather than give
    time for open discussion, the IESG agreed that the presentations
    should present specific information on the progress made since the
    last meeting. This progress would include information such as new
    specifications written, implementations tested, and Internet
    integration and deployment examined. Dave Crocker notified the IESG
    that the SIP and IPAE Working Groups should now be considered a
    single effort.

    ACTION: Knowles -- Query each of the New IP contenders for their
    current status in anticipation of making presentation time allotments.

    o IPLPDN

    There is a lively discussion of the IPLPDN Working Group charter.
    The negotiations between the Working Group and the IESG continue
    over limiting the scope of the Charter.

    o Secure FTP.

    Preliminary inquiries indicate that Common Authentication
    Technology may be the proper technology for securing FTP. It
    appears that the application of CAT to FTP can be done by the CAT
    Working Group.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Direct the Secure FTP folks to the CAT Working Group
    to explore the incorporation of CAT to FTP.

    Appendix - Summary of Action Items Assigned

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the IESG approval of the MTU Discovery
    Protocol as a Draft Standard.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send out a ballot to the IESG to move the Token
    Bus MIB to Historic.

    ACTION: Huizer - Revise the draft of the Working Group guidelines
    document in light of the SNMP Evolution process and incorporating
    revisions suggested by Gross and DCrocker.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Resent the aac charter to the IESG and IAB for
    consideration as a Working Group.

    ACTION: Knowles -- Query each of the New IP contenders for their
    current status in anticipation of making presentation time allotments.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Direct the Secure FTP folks to the CAT Working Group
    to explore the incorporation of CAT to FTP.

    Appendix - Results of the SNMP Community Survey

    IESG report on SNMPv2 Process Inquiry
    Erik Huizer
    10-March-1993

    Introduction
    ------------

    In the Network Management and Security Area of the IETF, two working
    groups have been working hard to define a new and secure version of
    SNMP, called SNMPv2. These Working groups are the SNMPv2 Working Group
    and the SNMP Security Working Group. These WGs have by early 1993
    produced 12 Internet Drafts, which they will soon submit to the IESG
    for advancement to proposed standard status. Recently, from a variety
    of channels and to more than one member, complaints have reached the
    IESG which call into question the process by which SNMPv2 has
    advanced. SNMP is too important and the persistence of background
    discomfort too significant for the IESG to ignore. Therefore the IESG
    found it necessary to establish if the complaints are unfounded or
    not, with the intention of putting matters of the WG's process to
    rest.

    To achieve this the IESG through one of its uninvolved members (the
    author) held an E-mail inquiry amongst the members of the Working
    Groups, asking for their comments on the process followed in the
    creation of the SNMPv2 documents. It must be stated that there have
    been no official complaints made to the IESG, and as such this inquiry
    is unprecedented, therefore the inquiry included a request for
    comments on the inquiry itself.

    This report summarises the results from the inquiry.

    The Inquiry
    -----------

    The following text was send by E-mail to the
    distribution lists of the two Working Groups on the 2nd March 1993:

    "The SNMPv2 process is drawing near to a conclusion with the
    submission of 12 documents to the IESG. The IESG is working to process
    these documents as soon as possible.

    Recently, from a variety of channels and to more than one member,
    complaints have reached the IESG which call into question the process
    by which SNMPv2 has advanced. The entire IETF is accountable for the
    standards it produces, and the IESG is obliged to investigate these
    complaints to determine whether the process has remained fair and open
    throughout. The IESG realizes the importance of a broad acceptance of
    SNMPv2 and finds it necessary to establish that the complaints are
    unfounded. The IESG has charged me, a non-partisan in the NM area, to
    approach the community most directly involved with SNMPv2 for input.

    Therefore I send you this message, and ask each and everyone of you
    who has comments on the process that led to the creation of SNMPv2 to
    send me a PERSONAL note. It should present your candid and
    confidential assessment of the chronology of events leading to the
    request to advance SNMPv2 to proposed standard, from the original call
    for contributions through the most recent postings to the mailing
    list. Since it is equally important to the IESG to hear from those
    who view the process as having succeeded as not, I urge you to
    respond. Please rest assured that your correspondence will remain
    entirely confidential; I will report back to the IESG in a summary
    fashion.

    The IESG does not wish this "process checkpoint" to further delay the
    advancement of these standards. You thus have until monday 8 march 9
    am EST to react. This will give me enough time to summarise before the
    IESG meeting later that day.

    So if you want to send me a personal note on this subject, do it now,
    and make sure that it has the same subject line as above, preceded by
    "re:".

    I apologise to everyone who feels offended by this note, or by the
    query. The IESG recognizes that requests of this nature are highly
    unusual, and deeply regrets having to proceed in this fashion. Indeed,
    if you find this action to be contrary to the best interests of the
    community, the IESG is interested in this feedback as well. We are
    trying to do what is best from the community, and taking the question
    to the community seems to be our best alternative in this matter."

    The inquiry was aimed at the process followed, and not at he technical
    contents of the WGs ofr the documents produced. For comments on the
    technical contents of documents the IESG will use the normal "Last
    Call" mechanism. Therefore remarks regarding technical contents of the
    documents in response to the inquiry have been ignored.

    The response
    ------------

    The WG on SNMP Security distribution list contained 258 entries at the
    moment the inquiry was sent. The SNMPv2 distribution list contained
    459 entries. Only 37 people responded to the inquiry before the
    deadline, 27 of them have E-mail addresses that indicate a commercial
    background.

    By far the majority of the people who responded (84%) claimed to be
    passive listeners. I.e. they were interested participants, but did not
    contribute any new ideas, nor participated actively in discussions on
    the WG lists.

    Although it is impossible to draw a unanimous conclusion from the 37
    responses, the following observations are supported by at least 75% of
    the responding people:

    1- On the whole the process leading to the 12 Internet Drafts has been
    as fair as possible and not much different from other IETF WG
    processes; The current set of documents is cetainly the best that
    could have been produced in such a short time, and is believed to be
    the only one to get the majority consensus from the WGs.

    2- There has been too much haste in getting the SNMPv2 proposal out;
    There was no need for the IESG and the Working Groups to set such a
    sharp deadline (december 1992). This deadline, and the pressure it
    created made various contributors feel that their proposals did not
    get the proper attention. Especially a final WG meeting in March
    (Columbus) would have been a good thing.

    3- The WG chairs have acted correctly, and they have done a wonderfull
    job of making sure that the documents were ready on time; All this
    within the limited timeframe, and with little leeway to have lengthy
    discussions on alternative proposals.

    4- The authors of the original SMP documents should have been more
    restrained in their reactions; It was suggested that the original
    authors should not have been the editors of the final documents,
    although this clearly would have delayed the WGs. The amount of work
    put in by the authors is very much appreciated and they are generally
    acknowledged as THE authorities with respect to SNMP. However, the
    original SMP authors had too much of a headstart in thinking along the
    proposed SNMPv2 lines. This made them react (too) fast to alternative
    proposals, which thus gave the (false) impression of not being
    considered seriously. The authors also repeatedly used the argument
    that their proposal was supported by working implementations, while
    the alternatives were not. This is not a proper argument to be used in
    a working group when working on a new protocol.

    5- The decision to split the work over two Working Groups was
    unfortunate. The two IESG Area Directors appointed to the process
    were either too involved, or not involved enough. This lead to
    miscommunication between the WGs and the IESG.

    6- There was no objection against, but also no real necessity for the
    IESG to do this inquiry.

    7- Due to time pressure the security aspects that have been introduced
    did not get the necessary attention/discussion

    8- The concept of a design team going off and preparing an initial
    working document is applauded. However there should be regular
    feedback from a design team into the WGs. The current situation where
    the result of the design team was heralded into the world through
    the press has been found very counter-productive.

    The Conclusions and recommendations
    -----------------------------------
    The SNMPv2 documents have been produced according to the normal IETF
    process with the two involved WGs operating much in the same way as
    other Working Groups. If there are any remarks to be made about the
    process they can be traced back to two main errors:
    - The IESG has failed to manage the SNMPv2 process properly; The main
    error being that the deadlines put onto the WGs were unnecessary
    tight.
    - The authors of the original SMP proposal have chosen an unfortunate
    way of presenting their proposals 'out of the blue' and defending
    them.

    Despite these shortcomings the WG chairs, the authors and other WG
    members succeeded in getting the documents ready within the agreed
    deadlines. The "Last Call" mechanism will have to show whether there
    are still technical issues unresolved that prohibit moving the
    documents to Proposed Standard and reviewing the results of this
    before moving them to Draft Standard.

    The inquiry performed by the IESG was usefull although not perceived
    to be necessary, and the amount of responses seems to confirm the
    latter. The IESG should therefore in future refrain from these kind of
    inquiries unless there are official complaints.