Minutes interim-1993-iesg-25 1993-12-02 16:30
minutes-interim-1993-iesg-25-199312021630-00

											
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    December 2, 1993

    Reported by: Steve Coya, Acting 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
    ---------

    Bradner, Scott / Harvard
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Crocker, Dave / SGI
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison)
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Klensin, John / UNU
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Mankin, Allison / NRL
    Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
    Rose, Marshall / DBC

    Regrets
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore

    1. The minutes of the November 18 teleconference were approved. They
    will be placed onto the IESG directory at the shadow sites.

    2. Following some discussion, the generic structure of IESG
    teleconferences is to change slightly when there is a specific
    suggestion for a topic that should be discussed at length . Attempts
    will be made to focus on normal IESG business during the first hour
    of the teleconference. The final hour is to be used for in-depth
    discussions of a single topic. Should discussion be completed in
    less than an hour, consensus will determine whether another major
    topic will be discussed or the meeting adjourned early.

    3. The IESG approved DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions as a Draft
    Standard. Coya to send announcement to the IETF and RFC Editor.

    4. The IESG discussed the recent exchange of e-mail pertaining to the
    X3S3 "heads up" message. It was felt that some clarifications might
    be needed, specifically pointing out that X3S3 scheduling their
    meetings to coincide with IETF meetings was being interpreted as
    co-meeting with the IETF. The IESG is not opposed to other groups
    co-locating their meetings with the IETF, as long as the IETF and
    the Secretariat are not affected negatively. Lyman was requested to
    send a clarification message to the IETF, IESG, IAB, and X3S3.

    5. Allison presented an overview of two new proposed WGs in the
    Transport Services Area: RSVP and Integrated Services. The
    Integrated Services charter is still be worked on, and potential
    chairs are being considered.

    To provide more time for review and comment from both the IESG and
    the IAB, both WGs will be considered for approval at the next IESG
    meeting.

    6. An error in RFC1006 (ISO transport services on top of the TCP:
    Version: 3) has been identified. Specifically, the sentence "Based
    on the size of the data transfer (DT) TPDU, this permits a maximum
    TSDU size of 65524 octets" is incorrect - the usual OSI Transport
    segmentation mechanism applies and there is no limit on the size of
    the transport *service* data unit.

    It was suggested that a check should be made with everyone who has
    implemented RFC1006, and identify those which may have chosen to
    enforce the limitation prior to taking steps to have the RFC
    republished (RFC1006 is currently an Internet Standard). Allison
    agreed to take this action item. Erik offered to forward Allison's
    query to entities that may not be on the collection of IETF lists.

    7. Policy on wg formation

    Marshall reviewed his area's new policy on controlling the creation
    of working groups within the NM area, explicitly defining the steps
    to be met in establishing new WGs. There was some discussion as to
    whether this should eventually become an IESG policy, or be up to
    the individual Areas to adopt or not. There was also discussion on
    the whether these steps were to be considered requirements or
    guidelines, and a few modifications of the steps (draft charter
    required before or after BOF, etc) were discussed. The IESG generally
    thought it could be a good approach, and the consensus was for each
    of the areas to try it, or a variation of it.

    8. Dave Crocker sent a revision of the WG Guidelines document to the
    IESG, accompanied by a list of major changes since the last version.
    IESG review and comment was solicited. Discussion was deferred to provide
    time to read the document.

    9. IETF meeting sites

    Phill reported that he has begun working on the next group of IETF
    meeting sites, and informed the IESG that sponsoring Social Events
    was of concern to potential hosts. Following spirited discussions
    and clarifications, the topic was deferred until more than one data
    point of history could be obtained.