MINUTES FOR APRIL 9, 1996 IAB TELECONFERENCE

PRESENT:

Fred Baker
Steve Bellovin
Brian Carpenter
Jon Crowcroft
Robert Elz
Erik Huizer
John Klensin
Robert Moskowitz
Radia Perlman
Jon Postel
Yakov Rekhter
Chris Weider
Abel Weinrib

NEXT MEETING:

Teleconference Tuesday May 14, 10-12 Eastern Time.

ACTION ITEMS:

NEW ACTION ITEMS:

• Bob Moskowitz, Steve Bellovin: Document security architecture issues.
• Brian Carpenter: Contact Bob Hinden to see if he will produce a document articulating the technical value of IPv6 beyond large addresses.
• Chris Weider: report on other issues from RFC 1862.
• John Klensin: Prepare Jim Gettys note as an Internet Draft, so that we can decide whether or not to release it along with the spec. during the next conference call.

OLD ACTION ITEMS:

• Abel Weinrib: Develop a draft document outlining the rules, practices, etc. for the Internet Research Task Force. Emphasize open publishing of results.

NOTES:

1. last call on any minutes still pending

2. review actions and drafts in progress

• IRTF charter--draft to list today.
• Charset workshop report--last call first week of May.
• principles of the architecture--still being worked on the mailing list

3. administrivia if any

Agreed to invite the ISOC CEO to take part in the IAB conference calls, with understanding that he/she may be asked to leave the call if called for by the topic of conversation. (Add him/her to the iab-admin mailing list.)

4. IESG liaison report

Fred Baker, IESG chair, said that what he is looking for the IAB to proactively take on the architectural role, so that the IESG can focus their limited cycles on more near-term work.

5. Brief review status of liaisons

Purpose and summary of IETF liaisons

The IETF arranges liaisons with other international standards bodies for various practical reasons, including

• minimization of duplication of effort and overlapping standards
• minimization of accidental incompatibilities between standards
• minimization of gaps in standardization

The principal methods of liaison are the arrangement of mutual, free electronic access to drafts and standards documents, and mutual access to mailing lists and meetings.

The decision to establish a liaison is taken by the IAB and IESG in consultation with the ISOC VP for standards.

A contact person will be named by the IESG for each liaison, typically but not necessarily the Area Director concerned. When a signed agreement is necessary, this will be executed by the ISOC.

A summary of currently known liaisons follows.

With what	Our contact	Their contact	Date	Comment
JTC1/SC2	??	??	93	dormant
JTC1/SC6	A. Mankin	J.Houldsworth	4/95	Lower layers of OSI
JTC1/SC18	John Klensin	Tom Frost	8/95	formal text pending
JTC1/SC21	H.Alvestrand	Bartoli/Lloyd	4/95	status unknown
JTC1/SC29	AVT + MMUSIC	Tom Casey	5/95	formal text pending
ATM Forum	Joel Halpern	Drew Perkins	94	partial document access
ITU-T	Scott Bradner	??	7/95	new

6. Review and prioritize issues list

WGs to watch over and "volunteers" :

(list from iesg)
CIDRD	kre, Brian, Yakov
RADIUS	Steve B
SVRLOC	Erik H?
HTTP	John K, Bob M?, Jon C
HTML	John K, Bob M?, Jon C
(other obvious concerns)
RSVP	Radia, Jon C?
IDMR	Radia?, Jon C?
IPSEC	Steve B, Bob M

Wider issues:

1. security architecture (incl. endpoint naming, key distribution, email)
   • General agreement that this is a critical area. Moskowitz and Bellovin volunteered to write up the issues.
2. accounting architecture (from Jon C)
3. mobile multicast (from Jon C)
   • Interesting. Sounds like a good IRTF group topic.
4. character sets (when workshop report arrives)
   • Wait for workshop report.
5. IPv6 and IPv4 (Lixia's legacy)
   • The question is whether attempting to prolong the life of IPv4 beyond a reasonable point is good for the architecture. Should the IAB be "taking sides," or simply be hands off? Is this politics or good technical engineering? Should we attempt to persuade people that they can spend their time more productively on things other than prolonging the life of IPv4?
     But is this the sort of thing that the IAB should pay attention to? No consensus was achieved, but it was pointed out that IAB statements (e.g., RFC on renumbering) can make a difference. One suggestion is that the IAB focus on articulating the value of IPv6 for solving problems beyond big addresses; perhaps author a technical RFC pointing out the technical advantages of IPv6 beyond big addresses.
     Brian Carpenter will contact Bob Hinden to see if he would like to prepare such a document.
6. QOS and routing (Yakov)
   • The int-serv and IP-over-ATM mailing lists have been addressing the topic of routing that is sensitive to resource reservation, including multicast. QoS and load-sensitive routing sounds like a good IRTF topic--Yakov Rekhter and Jon Crowcroft are interested.
7. DNS and whois data validation
   • Agreed this is not our problem.
8. other issues from RFC 1862
   • Chris Weider will look into this, and report back to the list.
9. ietf goals (Phill's legacy)
   • IESG is going to be putting together area plans at their retreat later this month. It was agreed we should look at these in light of the issues presented by Phill Gross at the open IAB meeting.

7. Any IAB workshop before Montreal?

Security--should there be a sharing of concepts and methodology across the whole problem? Goal would be to get people working on security in a common direction, or decide that different directions are necessary.
Should we do a workshop, or perhaps a BOF in Montreal?
Agreed that we will wait until Bob and Steve have produced their document on issues in this space.

8. Accounting, where to start?

Workshop on Internet accounting at Cambridge University, England, led by Jon Crowcroft and Frank Kelly. Driving force is the congestion on international links--want to be able to account for use to provide back pressure. Target is to produce a document on these issues, including authentication and security, metering and monitoring for assurances, focusing on what is deployable soon, possibly focusing on IPv6 hooks to support efficiencies. Jon Crowcroft will send the document to the IAB list in the near future.

9. HTTP

HTTP ad hoc working group is making serious progress. Concern is that publishing a standards track RFC on HTTP 1.1 may not be enough to get the communities attention. Should IAB or IESG try to encourage the transition to happen more quickly (since HTTP 1.0 is broken)? No one in the market has vanilla HTTP 1.0 implementations any more.

Might be a good idea to release the note around the same time as the 1.1 spec. is a draft--expected in the next month or so.

Future Meetings

Regular teleconference second Tuesday of the month at 10:00 AM Eastern Time.

---

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, weinrib@intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available at http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins. Also, visit the IAB Web page at http://www.iab.org/iab.

---

Previous Meeting 6 March 1996

Index of IAB Meeting Minutes

Next Meeting 14 May 1996

---

This page is maintained by the IAB Executive Director for the IAB.