Minutes interim-1992-iesg-13 1992-05-28 16:00
minutes-interim-1992-iesg-13-199205281600-00

    IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE

    May 28th, 1992

    Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary

    This report contains

    - Meeting
    - Meeting Attendees
    - Meeting Notes

    Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------

    Almquist, Philip / Consultant
    Borman, David / Cray Research
    Crocker, Dave / TBO
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI
    Regrets

    Chiappa, Noel
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Davin, Chuck / MIT
    Estrada, Susan / CERFnet
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet

    AGENDA
    ------

    1. Administrivia
    1.1 Bash the Agenda
    1.2 Approval of the Minutes
    1.2.1 Minutes of March 26
    1.2.2 Minutes of April 27th
    1.2.3 Minutes of May 4th
    1.2.4 Minutes of May 11th
    1.3 Next Meeting

    2.0 Review of Action Items

    3.0 Protocol Actions

    3.1 PPP Authentication
    3.2 SNMP Security
    3.3 BGP Next Hop SNPA Attribute
    3.4 SUPDUP
    3.5 CLNP PING
    3.6 Hostname Protocol
    3.7 TFTP Protocol
    3.8 PCMAIL
    3.9 NFILE
    3.10 SFTP
    3.11 "ISO" Transport on TCP
    3.12 WHOIS
    3.13 RIP
    3.14 BGP/OSPF Interactions
    3.15 IDPR

    4.0 Old Protocol Actions
    4.1 RFC 951, RFC 1084 Bootstrap Protocol and Extensions
    4.2 RFC 1144 Van Jacobsen Header Compression
    4.3 RFC 1094 NFS
    4.4 RFC 1057 RPC
    4.5 RFC 887 Resource Location

    5.0 Technical Management Issues
    5.1 IESG Recommendation on ROAD work
    5.2 IP Address Assignment Policies

    6.0 Working Group Actions
    6.1 OSI General

    MINUTES
    -------

    1. Administrivia

    1.1 Bash the Agenda

    The attendance at this Thursday Teleconference was a bit low.
    Because of missing IESG members, some of the agenda was skipped.
    There was discussion the IESG meeting dates and agreement was reached
    to resume Monday meetings as soon as possible.

    1.2 Approval of the Minutes

    The minutes of the March 26th, April 27th, and May 4th teleconference
    were approved.

    1.3 Next Meeting

    The IESG scheduled an conference for the next day, Friday May 29th
    from 12-2 EDT to discuss the ROAD recommendation authored by Philip
    Almquist. The previously scheduled meeting for Thursday June 4th
    will remain.

    2.0 Action Items

    The action items were not reviewed at this meeting.

    3.0 Protocol Actions

    The review of expired protocols resulted in a full list of protocol
    actions.

    3.1 PPP Authentication

    The IAB had a few questions about the PPP Authentication Protocols.
    Without the attendance of Steve Crocker, discussion was deferred.

    3.2 SNMP Security

    There is continued discussion on the SNMP Security documents. There
    has been some negative publicity concerning the lengthy delays
    getting these documents published.

    ACTION: Gross -- Send a note to the IAB expressing IESG concern about
    delays in approving the PPP Authentication and Secure SNMP protocols.

    3.3 BGP Next Hop SNPA Attribute.

    The IAB has a few comments on specific aspects of this new BGP
    attribute. In reviewing these questions, it is becoming apparent
    that this extension to BGP does not have a strong constituency. It
    was reviewed by the BGP and IPLPDN working group, but the author as
    expressed the opinion that this protocol extension may already be
    OBE, and has no objections to removing it from the standards
    process. The chair of the IESG expressed grave concern that the IESG
    passed a protocol to the IAB that was not supported by the IETF.

    ACTION: Hinden, Piscitello -- Investigate the constituency and seek
    clarification of the process by which the BGP attribute was sent to the
    IESG for standards consideration.

    3.4 SUPDUP

    The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
    call proposing to move SUPDUP to Historic Standard Status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move SUPDUP,
    RFC 734, to Historical Standard Status.

    3.5 CLNP PING

    The responses to the IESG last call on the CLNP PING protocol were
    not generally favorable. The situation with the ISO work on a
    similar protocol is not clear. The Area Director proposed deferring
    action on this protocol for a couple of months to get a better
    reading on other standardization activities.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the IETF suggesting that the IESG
    defer action on advancing RFC 1139, CLNP "Ping" until the prospects for
    the pending ISO consideration of this protocol can be better assessed.

    3.6 Hostname Protocol

    The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
    call proposing to move the Hostname Protocol to Historic Standard Status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the Hostname
    Protocol, RFC 953 to Historical Standard Status.

    3.7 Trivial FTP Protocol

    TFTP is a solid part of the Internet architecture. It is widely
    implemented and deployed. No technical objections to the protocol
    were sent in response to the last call.

    Karen Solins would like the authorship of the draft to include Noel
    as an editor.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- After resolving the questions of authorship of the
    TFTP document, send a recommendation to the IAB to elevate TFTP to
    Standard Status.

    3.8 PCMAIL

    Many comments were received by the IESG in response to the last
    call. There was significant response indicating that the protocol
    was in active use. PCMAIL is clearly not a dead protocol, but it has
    failed to gain wider acceptance over the past two years.
    Unfortunately, it appears that PCMAIL is being deployed and supported
    by only a single company. PCMAIL does not appear to have the
    multiple interoperable implementations required for Draft Standard
    Stage.

    The IESG discussed the general question of whether protocols in
    current use should be designated as Historic. In the case of PCMAIL,
    the IESG felt that the status of "Informational Protocol" was clearly
    a more appropriate status reflecting the pseudo-proprietary nature of
    the protocol.

    Action: Vaudreuil -- Write a draft recommendation to the IAB moving
    PCMAIL to Informational. Send this note to the IESG for review.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Contact the relevant people at FTP Software and make
    the case that PCMAIL is not ready for Draft Standard.

    3.9 NFILE

    The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
    call proposing to move NFILE to Historic Standard Status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move NFILE,
    RFC 1037, to Historical Standard Status.

    3.10 Simple File Transfer Protocol

    The IESG has received no negative comments in response to the last
    call proposing to move the SFTP Protocol to Historic Standard
    Status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a recommendation to the IAB to move the SFTP
    Protocol, RFC 913, to Historical Standard Status.

    3.11 "ISO" Transport on the TCP

    Several comments were received during the last call period suggesting
    editorial changes to the specifications. The title of the protocol,
    "ISO Transport on the TCP" was felt to be mis-representative. The
    specification only specifies Connection oriented transport, not
    connectionless. Further, use of ISO to identify OSI protocols is not
    currently considered preferable

    ACTION: Piscitello -- Contact Marshall Rose and request an editorial
    pass be made over the document before it is promoted to Standard.

    3.12 WHOIS

    There was a single negative comment received in response to the last
    call. The assertion was that whois documents a single service from a
    single provider which has little utility over merely registering the
    port. The IESG discussed, and agreed that WHOIS servers are much
    more widely deployed that commonly believed, and that the interface
    is used to various information systems including the X.500 pilot
    project.

    ACTION: Russ Hobby -- Send a note responding to the WHOIS objection.
    In the note, make a solicitation for more information on existing servers.

    WHOIS is one of the older Internet Protocols. As such the
    documentation is likely to be limited and may have assumptions in it
    which are no longer valid.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Review the WHOIS Specification for accuracy and
    clarity. If it requires modifications, initiate work on a new document
    reflecting current practice.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft and send a recommendation to the IAB
    elevating WHOIS to Standard Status after outstanding questions about
    accuracy are resolved.

    WHOIS is one of the commonly use Internet directory services. The
    "System" of whois servers is not well documented, and is therefore
    less useful than it could be. Emerging technologies such as that
    used by World Wide Web (WWW) and Archie attempt to aggregate
    information from servers of this sort but do it in an ad-hoc manner.
    The IESG briefly discussed work that could be initiated in the IETF
    to help, and agreed to discuss that at a future time.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Add a discussion of WHOIS-like information
    services to a future IESG Agenda.

    3.13 Routing Information Protocol

    The IESG received mixed comments on the elevation of RIP to
    Standard. There was a concern that elevating RIP to Standard will
    send a mixed signal to the community. RIP is an old-style routing
    protocols which neither fully supports current routing architecture,
    but does not support future routing either.

    The IESG discussed these objections and agreed that a mixed signal
    could be given. RIP is widely deployed and does meet the
    requirements for a Standard Protocol. RIP is the most widely used
    routing protocol. The IESG agreed to recommend RIP to Standard with a
    strong statement that this is part of the Grandfathering process and
    does not reflect a change in routing policy.

    Vaudreuil -- Draft the recommendation to the IAB elevating RIP to Full
    Standard. Include in the note the reasons the IESG is advocating this
    action.

    3.14 BGP-OSPF Interactions.

    The IESG did not discuss this document.

    4.0 Old Protocols Needing Review

    4.1 BootP and Extensions

    The IESG requires more information to evaluate BootP in light of the
    work continuing in the DHC working group, which should be wrapped up
    soon.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Invite Ralph Droms to participate in an upcoming
    IESG teleconference to discuss BootP and the timetable for DHC
    completion.

    4.2 Header Compression

    There has been no response from Van Jacobsen to queries about the
    accuracy of the header compression document.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a last Call for VJ Header Compression to the
    IETF list for Draft Standard. Explicitly solicit information on known
    problems.

    4.3 NFS

    It is clear that NFS is not fully implementable from the NFS RFCs.
    The RFC are not incorrect, and they reflect the current version of
    NFS, but are not complete and are missing critical information. If
    they were to progress they need to be expanded and clarified. More
    complete specifications are available from XOpen. The IESG has
    received no word from SUN on their intention to continue down the
    IETF standard process. If SUN is not interested in pursuing
    standardization, the IESG agreed that Historical is the likely state
    for these documents. Hinden and Borman will continue their action to
    get a signal of intention from SUN.

    4.4 RPC

    RPC was not discussed independently of NFS but is subject to the same
    consideration.

    4.5 Resource Location

    Resource Location was not discussed.

    5.0 Technical Management Issues

    5.1 Review of IESG Recommendation on ROAD Work

    The IESG was unable to discuss the ROAD recommendation due to lack of
    time. A follow on teleconference was schedule for the next day, May
    29.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Set up a teleconference for May 29th to discuss
    ROAD Issues.

    6.0 Working Group actions.

    6.1 OSI General

    Discussion on disbanding the OSI General Working group was not held.