Minutes interim-1992-iesg-04 1992-02-20 17:00
minutes-interim-1992-iesg-04-199202201700-00

IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

    February 20th, 1992

    Reported by:
    Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary

    This report contains

    - Meeting Agenda
    - Meeting Attendees
    - Meeting Notes

    Please contact the IESG Secretary, Greg Vaudreuil, for more information.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------

    Almquist, Philip / Consultant
    Borman, David / Cray Research
    Chiappa, Noel
    Crocker, Dave / TBO
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Davin, Chuck / MIT
    Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

    Regrets
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Hinden, Robert / BBN
    Crocker, Steve / TIS

    AGENDA
    -------

    1.0 Administrivia

    1.1 Bash the Agenda
    1.2 Approval of the Minutes
    1.1.1 December 5th, 1991
    1.1.2 December 12th, 1991
    1.1.3 January 2nd, 1992
    1.1.4 January 23rd, 1992
    1.1.5 February 6th, 1992
    1.3 Next Meeting

    2.0 Review of Action Items

    3.0 Protocol Actions

    3.1 SMDS to Draft Standard
    <RFC 1209>
    3.2 822 Message Header Extensions
    <draft-ietf-822ext-msghead>
    3.3 Frame Relay MIB
    <draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib>
    3.4 X.400 88=>84 Downgrading
    <draft-ietf-kille-88to84downgrade>
    3.5 Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
    <draft-ietf-kille-x_400mapping>
    3.6 IP Type of Service
    <draft-almquist-tos-02>

    4.0 RFC Editor Actions

    4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes
    4.2 DCNL to Experimental

    5.0 Technical Management Issues

    5.1 Interoperability testing at IETF meetings.
    5.2 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol
    5.3 Report from the ROAD Group
    5.4 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
    5.5 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
    5.6 Email Host Requirements
    5.7 Working Group Early Warning System
    5.8 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security
    5.9 IP over FDDI to Draft
    5.10 Network Database

    6.0 IESG Technical Evolution document.

    7.0 Working Group Actions

    7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferencing (avt)
    7.2 SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet (mpsnmp)

    MINUTES
    --------

    1) Administrivia

    1.2 Approval of the Minutes

    The minutes of the December 5th, 1991, December 12th, 1991, January
    2nd, 1992, and January 23rd, 1992 meetings were approved. Approval
    of the Minutes of the February 6th teleconference was deferred until
    the next meeting.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Post the minutes for the December 5th, 1991,
    December 12th, 1991, January 2nd, 1992, January 23rd, 1992, and
    February 6th, 1992 IESG teleconferences.

    The IESG discussed the manner in which action items should be
    recorded in the IESG Minutes. The assignment and conclusion of
    action items will be recorded in the minutes, but review of action
    items in progress will not be reported.

    1.3 Next Meeting

    The IESG scheduled a teleconference from 12:00 to 2PM EST Thursday
    March 5th.

    2) Action Items

    The action items were reviewed by email prior to the meeting. A
    summary of the action items concluded is enclosed as appendix A.

    3) Protocol Actions

    3.1 SMDS to Draft Standard (Noel Chiappa)
    <RFC 1209>

    Dave Piscitello related current operational experience of RFC 1209
    IP over SMDS service. Documentation of SMDS use is available, and
    George Clapp is working on documenting RFC 1209 usage over SMDS.
    This documentation does not need to be presented to the IESG in a
    formal letter. To make the gathering of information easier, the
    IESG agreed that specific customers and sites do not need to be
    disclosed. The general question of verifying the accuracy of the
    information was not discussed.

    Based on Piscitello's observations, the IESG approved RFC1209 for
    Draft Standard. The IESG still expects a report by email from
    George Clapp before sending the recommendation to the IAB.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a message to the IAB recommending RFC 1209
    be elevated to Draft Standard Status. Send the message after the IESG
    receives a report on operational experience from George Clapp.

    3.2 822 Message Header Extensions
    <draft-ietf-822ext-msghead>

    Two issues in the Message Header Extensions document were raised and
    discussed. There is a small difference in the "Q" encoding of the
    Message Headers and the "Quoted Printable" encoding in MIME.
    Because these two documents are expected to be implemented in the
    same software, there was a feeling that it would be better to use
    the same encoding. The encodings differ in their treatment of the
    space character, a special character in RFC 822 headers. The
    Working Group chair responded that the differences in the encodings
    were necessary to achieve the intended effect of having the most
    "reader friendly" representation possible. The underscore character
    is used represent a space in the header, and a space is left as
    itself in the body. The IESG was satisfied with this explanation.

    The second issue discussed concerned the operational implications of
    changing the header specifications. It was pointed out the changing
    the interpretation of the comment and quoted-string in the header
    will generally result in a change to the header parsing algorithms
    in user agents. Because of the complexity of these parsers, and the
    traditionally bad conformance to RFC 822, there was a question about
    whether this change to allow multi-character sets in the headers was
    worth the potential harm to the mail reading infrastructure. This
    protocol may prompt modifications to software that performs
    addressing parsing, including that done by mail relays, and may
    affect their operation.

    The IESG agreed that the risks of this change were acceptable to
    satisfy the needs for multi-lingual users of RFC 822 mail. The
    Message Headers document is one of two documents defining the new
    multi-media/ multi-lingual standards for RFC 822 email. No action
    is necessary until MIME is approved.

    3.3 Frame Relay MIB (Chuck Davin) LAST CALL: 2/11/92
    <draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib>

    The Frame Relay MIB Last Call was issued. In response to the last
    call, comments were sent, and a new version of the document was
    published as an Internet Draft. Recognizing that updates to
    documents that occur very late in the process could be at odds with
    their forward progress in an open way (or at best very confusing to
    the community), the IESG concluded that greater care is warranted in
    handling late-stage documents.

    POSITION: After a Last Call is issued, no further versions of the
    Internet Draft should be posted unless the Area Director specifically
    requests such a posting.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a message to the IETF updating the last call
    to reflect the current document.

    3.5 Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
    <draft-ietf-kille-x_400mapping>

    The IESG discussed the current situation with this document. This
    document has caused the IAB and IESG to clarify and revisit the
    requirements for a standards track protocol not originating in the
    IETF. This specific document has followed the understood practice,
    and was reviewed at an IETF plenary meeting at a one-shot BOF.

    ACTION: Gross: Bring this up to the IAB and seek clarification of the
    specific procedural objections. If resolution is not possible,
    schedule a meeting at the IETF of the relevant IAB, IESG, and Working
    Group members to achieve resolution.

    3.6 IP Type of Service

    The IP Type of service document was sent to the IAB. Discussion
    subsequently ensued on the IETF mailing list. The IESG discussed and
    affirmed the decision to recommend TOS for Proposed Standard Status.

    ACTION: Almquist -- Send a note to the IAB, and or the IETF,
    acknowledging the discussion and affirming the IESG position that the
    TOS document should be advanced per the IESG recommendation.

    ACTION: Gross -- Add TOS to the IAB agenda and relay to the IAB the
    sense of the IESG in regards to TOS.

    4) RFC Editor Actions

    4.1 Hybrid NETBIOS End-Nodes

    Dave Borman reviewed the NETBIOS document. The document intends to
    define a new standard end-node beyond the three defined in RFC 1002.
    The extensions outlined in general seems reasonable, however, the
    intent of the author is not clear. If this is to be an experimental
    document, publication is reasonable. If this is intended to be a
    Standard, the author needs to bring the document into the IETF.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Contact the author of the NETBIOS End-Nodes
    document, and find out if it is intended to be an experiment or
    standards track.

    4.2 DCNL to Experimental

    The RFC Editor forwarded the IESG the Dynamic Creation of Network
    Links document for review.

    This document is an independent submission to the RFC editor, even
    though it was reviewed at an IETF BOF. There are no plans to submit
    this document to the standards track at this time. If experiments
    are encouraging, this may serve as a starting place for standards
    track work.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify Jon Postel that the IESG has no objection
    to the publication of the DCNL document as an Experimental RFC.

    5) Technical Management Issues

    5.1 Interoperability testing at IETF meetings.

    The IETF Secretariat has received requests to support
    interoperability testing and functional demonstrations at IETF
    meetings. While the IESG believes that non-partisan interoperability
    testing represents one of the biggest strengths of the Internet
    Community, it believes that the IETF itself should not be the
    explicit sponsor of such events. To do so probably goes beyond the
    original charter of the IETF. Plus, there is the legitimate concern
    that the IETF Secretariat does not have the resources to support
    this type of additional activity.

    POSITION: Demonstrations and interoperability testing cannot be
    considered part of the IETF meeting itself, although there is no reason
    why the results cannot be shared with the relevent WGs, if
    approporiate. The IETF Secretariat does not have the resources to
    assist in planning such activites and therefore any such demos or tests
    have to organized and implemented by those performing the activity or
    function.

    5.2 RFC 931 User Authentication Protocol

    Because Steve Crocker was unable to attend, this topic was skipped.

    5.3 Report from the ROAD Group

    At its last meeting, the ROAD group has reached a set of
    recommendations. These recommendations are grouped in terms of a
    near term and a long term approach. The short term will address the
    immediate threat of Class B address exhaustion and routing table
    overload. The thinking regarding a longer-term scheme is still
    preliminary. Two approaches focus on using CLNP and address
    translation, and IP encapsulation.

    The ROAD group is expected to publish a paper and make a
    presentation before the San Diego IETF meeting. One possible
    approach is to spin up two Working Groups, one on each of the two
    aspects of the solution.

    The IESG voiced several concerns. The process by which the ROAD
    group reached its conclusions was a closed one, and it is important
    to give the ideas developed a through public hearing, and actively
    solicit comments.

    To facilitate openness while moving quickly, the IESG suggested that
    the ROAD group document as thoroughly as possible the options
    discussed, and the specific reasons they were rejected. By having
    this document, many questions can be deferred from the meetings
    themselves.

    ACTION: Gross -- Take sense of the IESG discussion to the ROAD group
    and to Peter Ford, the other co-chair of the ROAD group, and encourage
    them to consider to consider the requirements for openness in the IETF
    process and the need for timeliness in writing the report from the ROAD
    group.

    5.9 IP over FDDI

    Noel Chiappa conversed with Dave Katz, the chairman of the IP over
    FDDI working group. They agreed that the specification has several
    editorial changes that would be helpful, as well as a specific
    technical change to the protocol to reflect current usage.

    The IESG discussed whether it was necessary to write a new document,
    and after discussion, agreed that a new document should be written
    before elevation to Draft Standard Status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil, Chiappa -- Gather and forward to Dave Katz a list
    of changes for the IP over FDDI document.

    5.10 Network Database

    The Network Database working group appears to be moving forward in a
    direction without much community support. The IESG discussed the
    relative merits of the working group, but was unable to determine
    the degree of community support. There is no active liaison with
    the major database vendors, and no liaison with Sqlaccess, a major
    industry group defining common networking protocols for database
    use.

    ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Communicate with SQLAccess and get a current
    reading on their work and the manner in which the IETF should liaise if
    at all.

    7) Working Group Actions

    7.1 Audio/Video Teleconferencing (avt)

    The IESG has not received a revised charter. No discussion was
    necessary.

    7.2 SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet (mpsnmp)

    A new working group in the OSI Integration Area was proposed. This
    working group is tasked to complete and standardize a suite of
    protocols for SNMP over FOO. SNMP was designed to run over UDP,
    however UDP is not available in all networking environments. This
    working group is considered reasonable by the SNMP community.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the SNMP over Multi-Protocol Internet
    Working Group as soon a complete charter is available.

    8.0 Agenda Items Deferred

    3.4 X.400 88=>84 Downgrading
    <draft-ietf-kille-88to84downgrade>

    5.4 IANA and the Class "B" allocation strategy
    5.5 Internet Draft Format Requirements "Deplorable Documents" (PG)
    5.6 Email Host Requirements (Dave Crocker)
    5.7 Working Group Early Warning System (Dave Crocker)
    5.8 Report of the Ad Hoc meeting on DNS Security (Steve Crocker)

    6.0 Technical Evolution

    Appendix A

    Review of the Action Items

    (257) [Noel Chiappa, Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 12

    Contact George Clapp to document operational experience of
    the IP over SMDS protocol.

    Concluded.

    (278) [Steve Coya, Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    If Huizer and Piscitello can make thedate, schedule a 1 hour
    teleconference January 13th from 12PM to 1PM EST.

    Concluded.

    (258) [Dave Crocker] Assigned: Dec 12

    Schedule a User Friendly Naming teleconference to determine
    the correct course of action for the UFN document.

    Concluded.

    (245) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 05

    Craft and send a notification to the RFC Editor to publish
    the Internet Draft "A Catalog of Available X.500
    Implementations" as an FYI RFC.

    Concluded. The notification was sent December 13th.

    (246) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 05

    Craft, and hold a recommendation to publish the IP forwarding
    MIB document as a proposed standard.

    Concluded. The recommendation was sent 01/22/1992.

    (254) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Dec 12

    Craft a recommendation to elevate the SIP MIB to Proposed
    Standard.

    Concluded. The recommendation was send 02/10/92.

    (279) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    After approval from the Internet Area Directors, craft and
    send a recommendation to the IAB to publish the TOS document
    as a Proposed Standard.

    Concluded. the recommendation was sent 2/10/92.

    (280) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB recommending the
    "IP Forwarding Table MIB" be published as a Proposed Standard
    RFC. Include in the recommendation a note indicating the
    dependency on the TOS document.

    Concluded. The recommendation was sent 01/22/1992.

    (281) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Send a message to George Clapp reminding him that the IESG
    needs information on the extent of operational deployment
    before it can move IP over SMDS to Draft Standard.

    Concluded. This is a duplicate action.

    (285) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Reschedule the RFC-Headers discussion for the February 20th
    Teleconference.

    Concluded.

    (287) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Send a recommendation to the IAB that the Internet Drafts
    "Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
    Devices", "Definitions of Managed Objects for
    Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices", and "Definitions of
    Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices" be
    published as Proposed Standard RFC's.

    Concluded. The action was sent 2/10/92.

    (292) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Drop the TCP-Extensions document from the Active que of the
    IESG.

    Concluded. No action required.

    (294) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Send a note to Steve Casner reminding him that the IESG
    cannot approve his proposed working group until an acceptable
    charter has been filed with the IESG.

    Concluded. Casner has been reminded.

    (295) [Greg Vaudreuil] Assigned: Feb 06

    Announce the Token Ring Monitoring Working Group to the IETF
    mailing list.

    Concluded. The working group was announced 2/10/92