Skip to main content

Minutes interim-1991-iesg-08 1991-10-03 16:00
minutes-interim-1991-iesg-08-199110031600-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 1991-10-03 16:00
Title Minutes interim-1991-iesg-08 1991-10-03 16:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-1991-iesg-08-199110031600-00
IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

OCTOBER 3RD, 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.

Attendees
---------

Almquist, Philip / Consultant
Chiappa, Noel
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Crocker, Dave / DEC
Crocker, Steve / TIS
Davin, Chuck / MIT
Gross, Philip / ANS
Hinden, Robert / BBN
Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

Regrets

Borman, David / CRAY
Callon, Ross / DEC
Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet

Agenda
------

1) Administrivia
- Bash the Agenda
- Review of the Minutes
- July 30th - Aug 2nd.
- August 8th
- August 15th
- August 29
- September 5
- September 12
- September 19
- Next Meeting

2) Protocol Actions

- Secure Operation of Internet
- BGP
- Routing Information Protocol
- DOD IP Security Option
- Bridge MIB
- Point to Point Protocol
- Ethernet MIB
- Common IGP

3) Working Group Actions
- IP over ATM Working Group

1. Administrivia

1.1 Bash the Agenda

The agenda was approved as written.

1.2 Review of the Minutes

The minutes of September 19th were approved. The minutes of July
30th-Aug 2nd, August 8th, August 15th, August 29, September 5, and
September 12 will be installed and announced to the IETF

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Write and send an announcement of the
availability of the IESG minutes.

1.3 Next Meeting:

A face to face meeting was schedule for Tuesday evening over dinner.
Dave Crocker will make the appropriate arrangements.

A teleconference was scheduled for Oct 17th for the regular 12-2 PM time.

2. Protocol Actions

2.1 Secure Operation of the Internet

The work of the Security Policy Working Group is now as finished. The
effort to write guidelines is one which could be iterated
indefinitely, but the current version good and should be published.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a notification to Postel requesting
publication of the "Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the
Internet" document.

2.2 Border Gateway Protocol

The recommendation to publish BGP as a draft standard was sent to the
IAB. A discussion is expected at the IAB meeting at Interop, and
Hinden and Chiappa have been invited to participate in that
discussion.

2.3 Routing Information Protocol

The Routing Information Protocol is currently a Draft Standard. It
was one of the many protocols grandfathered in an effort begun during
the February 1990 IETF meeting. It is now eligible for elevation to
Full Standard. RIP does not meet current requirements for Draft of
Full Standard according to the current procedures, but the IESG feels
this protocol is a defacto standard, and should continue under the
grandfathering process.

There is discussion on the creation of RIP II, a new protocol based on
RIP which is intended at a minimum to carry subnet information. The
IESG agreed that this protocol if developed will be a new protocol and have
to meet the standards for modern routing protocols, including a MIB.

POSITION: RIP II as a new protocol must meet all the requirements of a
new modern routing protocol.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a message to the IETF announcing the IESG
position in regards to the evolution of RIP.

RIP is listed as a "Must Implement" in the Router Requirements
document. Currently RIP is not a Full Standard, and is believed
by many to be an obsolete protocol. RIP has been included in Router
Requirements as an acknowledgement of RIP as the defacto "common" IGP.

The IESG discussed whether having two common IGP's was consistent with
the intention of the IESG to define "a" common IGP. More importantly,
does the declaration of RIP as a common IGP opened up the possibility
of declaring IS-IS also a "common" IGP? The IESG agreed that RIP is
the current "common" IGP, and OSPF is it's replacement. It is the
intention of the IESG to have one IGP, and the listing of RIP in Router
Requirements is a pragmatic necessity for real operators until OSPF is
widely deployed.

POSITION: The IESG intends there to be only one common IGP. OSPF has
been designated as the modern IGP to replace RIP as the defacto common
IGP.

ACTION: Almquist -- Reopen the requirement that RIP be a "MUST" in Router
Requirements to confirm that Working Group "really really" wants RIP
as a MUST Implement.

In a related topic, it has recently been pointed out that many hosts
"wiretap" RIP packets to discover their nearest router. In this sense
RIP is being used as a router discovery protocol. If this practice is
extended to OSPF, it is possible that the amount of information
carried by OSPF will dramatically increase. Now that a router
discovery protocol has been defined, it is no longer necessary to use
routing protocols as router discovery protocols.

POSITION: OSPF is not a router discovery protocol. OSPF should not be
implemented in hosts for the purpose of router discovery.

ACTION: Gross, Chiappa, Almquist -- Insure that the IGP statement
explicitly discourages the use of OSPF as a router discover protocol.

2.4 DOD IP Security Option.

Progress is being made in the IPSO effort, and the September 30th
deadline for resolution of the major items was met. It appears that
the IESG linkage of the DOD IP Security option was an effective
forcing function. It is expected that an Internet Draft will be
published at any time.

2.5) Bridge MIB

There is no progress to report in the efforts to coordinate with the
IEEE. The IESG agreed that it is not necessary to hold up the current
work to align with the IEEE at the proposed standard level. The IESG
made a commitment to reopen the question of alignment at the Draft
Standard stage.

2.6) Point to Point Protocol.

The last call for comments to the IETF list has been met with silence.
The IESG took this to mean that there are no outstanding objections to
the advancement of PPP to Draft Standard.

No progress has been reported in discussion with the working group
chairman and the editors of the PPP documents. The IESG has decided
that the current author should be listed as the editor, and Drew
Perkins should be listed prominently in the Acknowledgements in a
manner similar to the BGP document.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Encourage a reposting of the PPP documents with
the proper authorship information. After receiving the new documents,
send a recommendation elevating the protocol to Draft Standard.

2.7) Ethernet MIB

The IAB has accepted the Ethernet MIB in it's original form. Any
alignment with the IEEE MIB will occur at the Draft Standard stage.

ACTION: Davin -- Announce the IAB decision to the SNMP Mailing list.

3) Working Group Actions

3.1) IP over ATM WG

The IP over ATM working group has been chartered to define an
experimental protocol for running IP over ATM in a local networking
environment. Given this limited scope, George Clapp, acting as
informal liaison between the IESG and the IEEE felt comfortable
with this Working Group. The IESG approved the Charter.

ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the IP over ATM working Group to the
IETF Mailing List.

Note: The prospective chair of the IP over ATM working group in
consultation with the IETF chair opted to delay the chartering of this
working group until after a BOF session could be held at the Santa Fe
IETF plenary meeting to more accurately gauge the constituency for
this effort.