IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE TELECONFERENCE January 2nd, 1992 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Attendees - Meeting Notes Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil Attendees --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Chiappa, Noel Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / BBN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Piscitello, Dave / Bellcore Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Agenda ------ 1.0 Administrivia 1.1 Bash the Agenda 1.2 Introduction of new IESG members 1.3 Review & Approval of old minutes 1.4 Set date of next IESG teleconference 2.0 IAB Architecture Retreat 3.0 Protocol Actions 3.1 Type 0f Service 3.2 TCP Large Windows 3.3 Appletalk Tunneling (AURP) 3.4 Point to Point Protocol, LCP, IPCP, and Authentication 3.5 DISI X.500 Executive Summary 4) RFC Editor Actions 4.1 Mail Checking Protocol 4.2 Mail Send Protocol 5) Technical Management 5.1 Review of User Friendly Naming teleconference Minutes -------- 1.0 Administrivia 1.1 Minutes A review of outstanding Minutes was deferred. 1.2 Welcome to Huizer and Piscitello Phill Gross announced two additions to the IESG, Erik Huizer from Surfnet and David Piscitello from Bellcore. They will serve as co-area directors for the OSI Integration area. 1.3 Next IESG meeting The IESG is planning to meet again by teleconference January 23rd. The IESG has been invited to the IAB Architecture Retreat January 8th and 9th. 2. Architecture Retreat The IAB is hosting a follow up Internet Architecture Retreat. The first one was held at the San Diego Supercomputer Center in June 91. The Minutes of that meeting are published as RFC 1287. This meeting will have a primary emphasis on security. Phill Gross called the IESG to a renewed focus on internet technical evolution, and has scheduled discussion on the IESG Technical Planning Document. Action: Vaudreuil -- Schedule a discussion on the IESG technical Evolution document for the January 23 Teleconference. 3. Protocol Actions 3.1 Type of Service The type of service documents are just about complete. There is one remaining technical nit and a few small changes needed. The IESG reviewed the current document and is satisfied. Further detailed discussion will occur at the January 23rd teleconference after the final document has been published as an Internet Draft. ACTION: Vaudreuil: Issue a last call after a new version of the TOS document is submitted. The Forwarding Table MIB document was approved at the last IESG teleconference. Because of a dependency between the Forwarding Table MIB and the TOS document, the last call was delayed. This call should be send out at the same time as the TOS last call. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send out a last call notification on the forwarding table MIB at the same time the TOS last call is sent. 3.2 TCP Large Windows A final version of the TCP Extensions for High Performance has been sent to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a last call on the TCP High Performance extensions document. ACTION: Coya -- Schedule a presentation at the next IETF meeting on the TCP Large Window specification. Also schedule a separate presentation on Cray Research's work on high speed TCP. ACTION: Borman -- Write a technical summary for an IESG recommendation on the TCP Extensions. 3.3 Appletalk Tunneling (AURP) The IESG reviewed the Appletalk Tunneling document. A last call was issues, and several comments were received. There is some degree of unhappiness in the community over the process in which this document was written. It appeared the development process was not as open as it could be. It is not clear that this document should not be advanced as a Informational document describing an Apple Protocol. The AURP proposal deals with both Appletalk Tunneling, and a larger question of routing and disjoint namespace management. The IESG did not have enough information to make a decision. ACTION: Chiappa -- Investigate the Appletalk Tunneling documents both in terms of their constituency and technical focus. 3.4 Point to Point Protocol, LCP, IPCP, and Authentication The Point to Point Protocol document have undergone yet another last minute change. The IESG welcomes the efforts to find and eliminate bugs in the protocols before re-submission as proposed standards. The IESG has agreed to hold off consideration of these documents for several weeks to insure their stability before advancing them to Proposed Standard. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Issue a last call for the PPP documents once they have become stable. 4.5 DISI X.500 Executive Summary The Directory Information Services Infrastructure working group has submitted an Informational document to the IESG for publication. The IESG applauds this effort. Erik Huizer has requested that the document be discussed with the RARE WG3. A few loose ends were spotted. The abstract provides references to additional references not included in the document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Craft a "Notification" to the RFC Editor for the X.500 Executive Summary document after discussing the documents with Rare WG3 and resolution of editorial nits. 5. RFC Editor Actions This IESG has been reminded on several occasions that there continue to be outstanding RFC Editor actions. The IESG has reviewed each of the actions, and in many cases has raised technical objections to the documents. A discussion ensued about the expected role of the IESG in giving advise to the RFC Editor. The IESG currently reviews Informational and Experimental protocol for the RFC Editor. This review is focused on 1) Conflict and coordination with existing standards efforts, and 2) A "Danger limitation" review both in terms of security and network usage. It is not clear how the IESG became the arbiter of protocol "Safety" for experimental protocols, but it is willing to continue this function. Currently the IESG notifies the RFC Editor when serious objections have been raised. The confusion and delay occur in resolving the conflict. Is it the responsibility of the IESG to act as an agent of the RFC Editor in requiring changes to a document to be published, or is it IESG responsible to simply notify the IESG editor of the problems and suggested fixes? The question becomes complex. Many objections raised in the IESG can, and are expected to be resolved with informal dialogue with the author. Other objections result from a basic disagreement either in terms of technical adequacy or intended scope. Many of the worst delays result from apparent deadlock. No immediate resolution of this problem was discussed. Further off-line discussion between Vaudreuil, Reynolds, and Postel was suggested. ACTION: Vaudreuil and Reynolds -- Converse with the RFC Editor and clarify the expectations of the IESG and RFC Editor in the review of Informational and Experimental Protocols. 5.1 Message Send Protocol No resolution between the IESG and the authors has been reached. ACTION: S. Crocker -- Offer specific text to the authors of the Message Send Protocol and the RFC Editor. 5.2 Mail Checking Protocol The IESG reviewed this protocol. Specific security concerns were raised and send to the authors of the document and the RFC editor.