IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING January 4th, 1993 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, 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 --------- Borman, David / Cray Research Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / Bellcore Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Regrets Almquist, Philip / Consultant Chapin, Lyman / BBN Crocker, Dave / TBO Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet AGENDA ------ 1) Administrivia o Approval of the Minutes - December 21st o Teleconference Meeting Times 2) Protocol Actions o PEM o SMTP Extensions o DS1 MIB o DS3 MIB 3) Technical Management Issues o IP Addressing Guidelines o SNMP Security o Policy Statements 4) RFC Editor Actions o RIP (Wide Area Routing with RIP) o Traceroute 5) Working Group Actions o IP Security (ipsec) o SIP (sip) MINUTES -------- 1) Administrivia o Minutes The IESG had several comments on the Minutes of December 21st. These minutes were held over for approval until the next teleconference. o Teleconference Meeting Times The IESG meetings have been rescheduled for 11:30 ET to ease dinnertime inconvenience and facilitate more quality family time for the growing families of IESG members in the ET+6 timezone. Because many ET cafeterias are open only during the teleconference, this will slightly ease grouchiness of the several ET participants. It is understood that all ET-3 participants rise early and would welcome stimulating breakfast conversation. 2) Protocol Actions o PEM The letter from RSA pledging to make licenses available to all on a non-discriminatory basis was forwarded to the IESG. PEM is the first protocol the IESG has been asked to standardize which a key technology is subject to licensing. Further, the technology is subject to restrictive export controls. Questions remain in the IESG about how these issues will impact availability and utility of the protocol. ACTION: SCrocker -- Write text for the protocol action announcement addressing the patent and export issues. o SMTP Extensions The SMTP Extensions Working Group has produced a revised version of the protocol initially sent to the IESG. These changes were reviewed by the IESG and approved. Comments on the informational transition document were raised by Keld Simonsen. The IESG discussed these comments which were earlier raised wrt to the MIME protocol and did not feel they needed to be further discussed. ACTION: Hobby -- Send a response to Keld Simonsen addressing his comments on the ESMTP transitional document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a draft protocol action and ballot to the IESG for approval. o DS3 MIB and DS1 MIB RFC 1232 and RFC 1233 contain a fundamental error: many objects are encoded as counters that must be encoded as integers or gauges. The magnitude of the change required is sufficient that virtually every object changed. Corrected documentation was submitted to the IESG. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a Protocol Action and Ballot to the IESG for approval. 3) Technical Management o IP Addressing Guidelines Discussion was opened with the authors of the IP addressing guidelines about the IESG intention to make this document an Informational document. The authors disagreed with this approach preferring to use the approach used with the NSAP addressing guidelines, Proposed Standard. The IESG discussed the document and noted that the guidelines are clearly not protocols in the sense of something that is implemented to be interoperable. The guidelines do not improve interoperability, although they do increase efficiency, but they are an important operational coordination issue. IP addressing guidelines are a integral part of CIDR. It was pointed out that CIDR itself is not a standards track protocol although specific protocols needed to implement it are such as BGP4. It has become clear to the IESG that Proposed Standard is not the right designation for these operational guidelines but a document subseries for this class of documents has not yet been created. A proposal for Statements of Policy (SOP) subseries similar to the OG series the IAB had earlier discussed was suggested by the authors via an Internet-Draft. While proposed standard was not the approach favored by the IESG, it was not able to address the full implications of making this document informational. ACTION: Gross -- Discuss with the IANA, the FEPG, IEPG, and the authors of the IP Addressing Guidelines document the implications of making document an Informational document. o SNMP Security There is a continuing technical disagreement in the SNMP Security Working Group which does not seem to be reaching closure. Similarities between this controversy and the SMTP Extensions gridlock were noted and the Network Management Area Director requested that the IESG serve as a moderator. The IESG briefly discussed the situation and requested that the Security Area Director and the Network Management Area Director investigate and report back to the IESG. ACTION: Davin and SCrocker -- Investigate the current disagreements in the SNMP Security Working Group and report back to the IESG. o Operational Guidelines Detailed discussion on an Operational Guidelines (OG) subseries was deferred until the next teleconference. 4) RFC Editor Actions o Routing over Demand Circuits on Wide Area Networks - RIP. This document was sent to the RFC Editor as Proposed Standard. It was referred to the IESG for assignment to a Working Group. This has not yet been done. ACTION: Hinden -- Assign the Routing over Demand Circuits - RIP to a IETF Working Group to be reviewed prior to submission as a Proposed Standard. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to Jon Postel acknowledging receipt of this document. o Traceroute The IESG has reviewed the Traceroute document submitted as a Experimental Protocol. The IESG sent extensive technical comments to the RFC editor. The IESG is willing to have this published as an Experimental Protocol provided the title is changed to reduce confusion with the current traceroute utility. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor expressing the IESG feedback on the traceroute document. 5) Working Group Actions o IP Security No progress to report. o SIP The SIP Working Group charter was held up pending review of several milestones which appeared over-aggressive. The delivery dates have passed and the IESG refined the milestones for January. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the formation of the SIP Working Group. APPENDIX -- Summary of Action Items ACTION: SCrocker -- Write text for the protocol action announcement addressing the patent and export issues. ACTION: Hobby -- Send a response to Keld Simonsen addressing his comments on the ESMTP transitional document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a draft protocol action and ballot to the IESG for approval. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a Protocol Action and Ballot to the IESG for approval. ACTION: Gross -- Discuss with the IANA, the FEPG, IEPG, and the authors of the IP Addressing Guidelines document the implications of making document an Informational document. ACTION: Davin and SCrocker -- Investigate the current disagreements in the SNMP Security Working Group and report back to the IESG. ACTION: Hinden -- Assign the Routing over Demand Circuits - RIP to a IETF Working Group to be reviewed prior to submission as a Proposed Standard. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to Jon Postel acknowledging receipt of this document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send a note to the RFC Editor expressing the IESG feedback on the traceroute document. ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Announce the formation of the SIP Working Group.