INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING 2 September 1993 Reported by: John Stewart, 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 Klensin, John / UNU Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Mankin, Allison / NRL Rose, Marshall / DBC Stewart, John / CNRI IAB Liaison Christian Huitema / INRIA Yakov Rekhter / IBM Regrets Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Minutes ------- 1. Administrivia o Roll call o Next meeting is 23 September 11:30 - 13:30 EDT 2. Protocol Actions o The IESG approved moving the "Host Resources MIB" Internet-Draft to Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)" Internet-Draft to Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved moving the "Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices" Internet-Draft to Draft Standard. o The IESG previously approved moving CIDR to Proposed Standard. Scott Bradner will reduce the review of the Operational Requirements Area Directorate (ORAD) to one paragraph (or so) for inclusion in the protocol write-up. The comments from ORAD ask for some small, purely editorial, modifications to the documents; however, in the interest of time, these changes will be sent to the RFC Editor after the Protocol Action announcement is made and the Internet-Drafts are being turned into RFCs. ACTION (Bradner): Send a summary of the ORAD review of CIDR to the IESG so the write-up section of the Protocol Action can be completed. 3. Working Group Actions o Stream Protocol Working Group (ST) The IESG wants IAB comments on this potential working group. A question was asked about the BOF for ST; some attendees thought that the BOF went well, while other attendees disagree. It was agreed that the charter of the working group should explicitly say that there goal is *not* to produce a standards-track RFC. ACTION (Knowles): Add text to charter saying that they do not want to produce a standards-track RFC. ACTION (Stewart): Comment on the working group charter, especially making sure that the goals and milestones are quantifiable. 4. Working Group Informational Documents o "Guidelines for OSPF / Frame Relay" as Informational ACTION (Hinden): Talk to Moy about whether the document should be Informational or Proposed. 5. Management Issues o IESG Policy on OSI-related work, and IESG response to OSIXTND The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some minor editing was done to make sure the announcement was not overly general, possibly being interpreted as "watered down." The IESG wanted to make sure Dave Piscitello had a chance to review the announcement. The assembled IESGers want the announcement to be mailed by Tuesday 7 September. ACTION (Stewart): Get in touch with Piscitello and make sure he sees the documents and makes any comments soon. ACTION (IESG): Make announcement by Tuesday afternoon. o IETF/IESG Chair's approach to IPng decision process The announcement proposed by Phill Gross was read aloud. Some minor editing was done to the announcement. There was a debate about the appropriateness of this solution, but the IESG agreed that there was a chain of decisions that got IPng to this point, and this solution is the natural result of that path. ACTION (Gross): Send the second version of the draft to the IESG for comments. Allison Mankin, as one of the Co-area Directors for the IPng Area, asked for clarification on what "open" meetings of the directorate meant. It was agreed that having minutes for all meeting released in a timely manner would satisfy openness. Mankin and Scott Bradner said they would be able to give a progress report on the forming of the IPng Area and its directorate at IETF in November. Mankin and Bradner had some questions on logistics and if the IETF Secretariat could help provide human resources (e.g., minute-takers) and funding (e.g., paying for teleconferences). These questions will be resolved off-line. ACTION (Bradner, Coya, Mankin): Work off-line to figure out what, if any, support the IETF Secretariat can give to the IPng area. o Scheduling of IETF Meetings Some IETF meeting attendees (IESG members and otherwise) think that the meetings are not planned far enough in advance. The major problem currently is the high demand placed on local hosts for logistic support (e.g., the many details involved with the terminal room). There were two issues discussed: (1) trying to make the current system work better, and (2) changing the system so that meetings can be planned further in advance (e.g., getting rid of some of the logistics demands on local hosts). The IESG was in agreement that major religious holidays should be avoided. ACTION (Coya): Try to think of ways to make the process better under the current system. o Do we want an IESG-wide policy on WG scheduling? The IESG felt that an IESG-wide policy was not necessary. They did feel, however, that the Secretariat would be well within its rights to instate a general policy which can be fine-tuned by area directors for their area if they wish. As a result, the Secretariat will ask for approval from an area director if a working group asks for more than two slots. o IESG meetings at the IETF The IESG will meet from 16:00 to 18:00 on Monday at the Houston IETF meeting. Additionally, the IESG are to meet in the general area of the registration desk at the conclusion of the morning technical presentation to touch base and determine if additional meetings are needed.