Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 1992-01-07

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1992»IAB Minutes 1992-01-07

Internet Activities Board

Meeting Minutes — January 7, 1992

FOREWORD


This document contains minutes of the meeting of the Internet Activities Board (IAB) held on January 7, 1992 at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. (BBN) in Cambridge, MA. The meeting agenda will be found in Appendix A.

The attendees were:

    IAB Members:

      Bob Braden, ISI
      Hans-Werner Braun, SDSC
      Vint Cerf, CNRI
      Lyman Chapin, BBN
      Dave Clark, MIT
      Phill Gross, ANS
      Christian Huitema, INRIA
      Steve Kent, BBN
      Tony Lauck, DEC
      Barry Leiner, ADS
      Dan Lynch, Interop, Inc.
      Jon Postel, ISI

    Guests:

      Peter Ford, LANL

    Scribe:

      Steve Coya, CNRI

1. REVIEW ACTION ITEMS

    The outstanding action items were reviewed, with results summarized in Appendix B. Several items led to discussion.

    1. Non-Discriminatory Naming

        [ACTION 10/91]: Postel [IANA]: Publicize policy on nondiscriminatory naming and how naming disputes will be resolved.

      It is very difficult to figure out how to settle naming disputes outside the U.S. Cerf had suggested that the ITU might be a help, but it was observed that the ITU represents mainly the PTT’s, which might not be as neutral as we would desire. The Executive Director (ExecD) was instructed to put this item on a future agenda. The action item was continued.

    2. Policy on Encapsulation

        [ACTION 5/29/91]: Gross: Draft a general statement of IAB policy on standardization of encapsulations within IP.

      There are persistent questions about whether or not all cases of Y-over-IP encapsulation are appropriate for Internet standardization. The ExecD was instructed to place this item on a future meeting agenda. The action item was continued.

    3. Network Acceptable-Use Policy

        [ACTION 10/90]: Postel: Try to publish all acceptable-use policies.

      RFC-1174 ["IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Number Assignments and IAB Recommended Policy Change on 'Connected' Status", August 1990] defined an earlier agreement to replace the concept of “connected status” by a more general description of acceptable use for each administrative domain in the Internet. This action item asked Postel to obtain and publish the acceptable-use policies, at least for all important transit networks.

      Postel reported that documenting these policies has become much more difficult, due to the change of NIC. However, he agreed to continue to try to document them.

    4. Letter on Standards Overlaps

        [ACTION 6/91]: Gross: Redraft letter to IEEE on overlapping standards activities.

      This action arose out of the discussion of the Ethernet MIB and its implications for possible conflicts between standards bodies. The current meeting agreed to transfer the action to Cerf.

        [ACTION 1/7/92]: Cerf: Revisit letter to IEEE on overlapping standards activities.

2. STATUS REPORTS

    2.1 Internet Society (ISOC)

      Cerf reviewed the status of ISOC. The initial charter has been signed by representatives of the three charter organizations -RARE, EDUCOM, and CNRI. The Board of Trustees will be selected over the next 2-3 months.

      IAB members expressed concern that the initial choice of board members should reflect the international character of ISOC, to avoid giving the incorrect impression that the ISOC will be UScentric. Cerf agreed to the principle, but noted that the initial choices will have to be governed somewhat by practical issues involved in just starting up an organization. Leiner suggested working closely with RARE to develop a list of potential members of the Board of Trustees.

      There was a discussion of relations between the IAB and the future ISOC Board of Trustees.

      Cerf reported that the first ISOC newsletter is 95% completed, and that the invoice and membership card designs have been completed. There are 750 registered individual members.

      The schedule of ISOC/INET meetings is:

        INET92   June 15-19,1992   Kobe, Japan
        INET93   August 18-21, 1993   San Francisco*
        [*precedes Interop '93 West]

      It was observed that scheduling INET93 during a vacation month is a bad idea, but Cerf said there were compelling reasons for this particular choice.

    2.2 RFC Copyright Language

      Cerf reviewed activity to date and listed three general issues:

      1. Disclaimers on standards documents, to prevent lawsuits.

      2. Intellectual property rights policy language, for inclusion in the standards procedures document. Cerf now believes that a single section can handle copyrights, patents, and trade secrets.

      3. Copyright notices on standards documents, governing the rights to reproduce in print and electronic form and the rights to alter the format for presentation in different media.

      There was a discussion of the need to permit and encourage derivative works based on RFCs; the text that is adopted must not restrict or constrain such activity. Huitema pointed out that the IAB policy should be both simple and international.

      Three issues were discussed concerning copyright notices on standards RFCs.

      1. Does ISOC need a signed release form?

        It was unclear whether signed forms will be required. However, the discussion revealed difficulties in administration of release forms within an IETF working group context. Cerf noted that only those listed as authoring RFCs would need to sign any release form, according to the lawyers.

      2. Should authors retain (exclusive) rights to for-profit reproduction of their RFCs?

        The IAB felt strongly that authors should NOT retain such rights.

      3. Should authors retain exclusive rights to at-cost reproduction?

        There was not a clear consensus on this question.

      Clark asked whether a release form signature would interfere with the ability of a researcher to publish in RFC form in advance of scholarly publication. This was not answered.

      The group asked for a description of the instructions under which the lawyers are operating.

        [ACTION 1/7/92]: Cerf: Write summary of his instructions to patent and copyright attorneys.

    2.3 ROAD Group

      Peter Ford reported that the ROAD group had met once, would be meeting over the next two days, and would meet again in Arizona.

      To date, the ROAD group has reviewed the basic alternative solutions and time frames (short, medium, long). Their discussions are focusing more and more on LNAT (Network Address Translation) schemes for transition, and on CLNP as the framework of an ultimate solution. The Road group has been concentrating on addressing, largely neglecting routing issues. Routing will be discussed during the two days in Boston and again in Arizona.

    2.4 RFC Status and Publication Policies

      Postel reviewed the status of RFCs in the editorial process, noting which items had changed since the previous meeting. His report is reproduced in Appendix C.

    2.5 Plans for Architecture Retreat II

      Braden reviewed the plans for the second IAB Architecture retreat, to be held the two following days. Results of this retreat will be published separately.

3. POLICY ON ASSIGNMENT AND USAGE OF IP NETWORK NUMBERS

    Gross reported that he and Elise Gerich are still working to produce a one-page policy recommendation, based on conclusions reached at an earlier meeting of the International Engineering Planning Group (IEPG). The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Jon Postel is working with the new NIC to coordinate policies.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Postel (IANA): Coordinate network number assignment policy with the NIC, and then publicize policy.

    The possibility of “garbage-collecting” assigned but unused numbers was discussed. Postel said that we could ask those who were assigned large blocks long ago to release some numbers, but that this would be very hard and would probably not give much return for the effort invested. Another suggestion was to encourage isolated internets to use private IP addresses, but the group felt this was a bad idea, as isolated internets often become connected to the Internet in a few years.

4. FUTURE OF THE INTERNET RESEARCH TASK FORCE (IRTF)

    At this meeting, Dave Clark announced that he simply no longer had the time to function as an IAB member, and did not have time to serve as an effective chair of the Internet Research Task Force or its steering group (IRSG). Clark noted that a more active IRTF chairman would be beneficial, providing purpose and direction to the members of the task force. Increasing the visibility of the IRTF to the outside world and to the IAB would increase the value of the IRTF to the Internet community. Leiner observed that IETF issues have absorbed IAB attention, so that we have been neglecting important longer-term Internet issues.

    The group discussed the option of “cutting loose” the IRTF from the IAB structure. The group felt strongly that this would be very undesirable; the IAB/IETF/IRTF structure is important to provide network researchers a means to transfer their research results into practice.

    Discussion followed on the selection of a new IRTF chair. Jon Postel tentatively accepted the role, with the understanding that his time is very limited as well and that his role will be largely limited to liaison with the IAB. Clark agreed to stay on the IRSG as an advisor.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Postel: Propose list of research deliverables for IRSG.

5. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE IAB AND ITS ACTIVITIES

    Leiner observed that the IAB and IETF are moving only slowly towards internationalization of their activities. The obstacles are primarily logistical. This led to a brief discussion of the scaling of IETF activities. IETF growth itself could lead to regionalization, and regionalization would create difficult problems of global coordination.

    Huitema observed that the only IETF working groups with significant non-US participation are those concerned with OSI applications, and that these groups move very slowly due to the necessity of coordinating with other groups such as RARE.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross, Leiner: Document steps being taken to move towards internationalization of IETF and IAB activities.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Develop proposal for handling IETF growth.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Develop proposal for IETF internationalization.

6. IAB POSITION ON WHITE-PAGES SERVICE

    Huitema summarized his concerns about the viability of X.500 as the general database service for which it was designed. In summary, if X.500 is used in any but the simplest cases, it will create a centralized, not a distributed, database. The desire to do all things will result in an excessive load being placed on the top level server. There is also a need to separate “registration” from “listing.”

    Clark recalled that the IAB earlier took a “deliberately ambiguous” position on X.500: since the OSI community was ahead of the Internet community in designing a general directory system, the IAB suggested that we try to adopt X.500 to solve our White-pages problem, and that an experiment be run to try out X.500 for this purpose. See RFC-1107 ["A Plan for Internet Directory Services", K. Sollins, RFC-1107, July 1989].

    This led the meeting to a provocative question: has the experiment now been done? It was suggested that the Naming RG of the IRTF be asked to consider this question, and if possible prepare an interim finding on the adequacy of X.500 for the Internet. Clark also pointed out that research was needed in distributing searching, and that such research should be done in the very near future.

    One problem noted was that “X.500 people want EVERYTHING” in the X.500 database. Another concern was that inadequacies in the Quipu implementation might unfairly bias the results against X.500. Clark: Quipu could not be installed to hold the MIT directory because it did not have adequate security against dumping the entire database.

    Cerf: The Internet needs a directory that can store information about users, particularly the public passwords needed for PEM. Huitema: this does not require general searches, so X.500 should be adequate for this case.

    The group then discussed an alternative, such as a “simple white pages services”. For example, this might be a service that would accept a text string from anyone, sort these strings, and be prepared to retrieve them efficiently. It would provide a replicated centralized search. The proposal would be to create a public domain version of this code, and to provide a transition plan for ultimate deployment of a more general solution like X.500.

At this point in the history of the Internet, Dave Clark threw away the term “bimodal iconoclast” and left the meeting and the IAB. He will be missed.

7. STANDARDS PROCESS DOCUMENT

    The group discussed the feedback that has been received in response to the “last call” which was issued on the IAB’s Standards Process Internet Draft. Some of the questions dealt with locating information on the IETF organization, which does not belong in this particular document.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Publish Informational RFC defining structure of IETF.

    Other topics included the issues of copyrights and patents, and the lack of an explicit appeals procedure.

    The question was asked whether publication of the document should delayed until all outstanding issues have been resolved. The consensus was to publish the current version as soon as possible, to document the current procedures, and address the issues that have been raised in a later version. The ExecD was instructed to make a quick edit run, send the result to the IAB and IESG, and submit it to the RFC editor. This document should include a specific list of issues that need to be addressed in a future document. It was also noted that the author-of-record should be the current IAB chair, Lyman Chapin.

    It was decided that the IAB will hold a BOF on the Internet standards procedures at the San Diego IETF meeting in March 1992, to obtain more community feedback.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Update Standards Procedures RFC with obvious changes, and circulate result to IAB and IESG prior to publication.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Arrange BOF at March ’92 IETF, to discuss standards procedures.

8. INTERNET INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

    As previously decided, the Internet Monthly Report (IMR) will continue to be published in its current form, and it will contain the most current information on IAB/IETF standards issues. However, the ISOC newsletter will be the official journal-of-record for the IAB/IETF.

    The IAB as a whole was not keen on the idea of ISOC setting up a network news subtree, nor on the existence of an “iab-interest” mailing list.

9. STANDARDS ISSUES

    9.1 Ethernet MIB

      The Proposed Standard Ethernet MIB has been published as RFC-1284, but the IAB has never closed the loop by announcing the action to the IETF.

        [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Announce Proposed Standard state of Ethernet MIB.

    9.2 User Friendly Naming (UFN)

      Huitema summarized the results of a recent conference call on the UFN specification. The conference included the working group chair Steve Hardcastle-Kille and some members of the IAB and IESG.

      The conference agreed to split the document into two parts: (1) A definition of an external representation for potentially unambiguous names, to be published as a Proposed Standard, and (2) a description of the User-Friendly-Naming algorithm proper, to be published as an Experimental RFC.

      It was noted that the IESG had recommended acceptance as a Proposed Standard, with a copy to the IETF mailing list, but the IAB had not yet responded. The ExecD was instructed to draft an announcement of the decision.

        [ACTION 1/7/91]: ExecD: Draft announcement of User-FriendlyNaming status.

    9.3 BGP Next-hop-SNPA

      This request for a Proposed Standard is awaiting a response by the IESG on a question raised by an IAB member.

        [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Re-send question concerning BGP NextHop-SNPA to IESG.

    9.4 RIP II

      Although this effort is only beginning in the IETF, some IAB members have doubts that it is in the best interest of the Internet community. OSPF has been chosen as the routing protocol that should be universally available. In a formal sense, sanctioning a new routing protocol would be inappropriate. It was suggested that, at this stage, a working group should not begin on a new routing protocol unless there are strong advantages to the new work.

      There are also technical concerns with RIP II. People differ on whether or not OSPF requires excessive memory or is too complicated for simple situations, creating the need for a simpler protocol like RIP II. However, several IAB members suggested that a mixture of link-state and distance vector routing is known to be a technically bad idea, and will lead to undesirable route flapping.

        [ACTION 1/7/92]: Huitema, Lauck: Draft statement of technical concerns about RIP II.

    9.5 X.400(88) Downgrading

      This document was introduced into the process by its author as an individual contributor, not by an IETF working group. There are presently questions about ownership, change control, and constituency. The consensus was that this specification should be explicitly “owned” by some IETF working group.

      Another issue was raised: does it conflict with ISO? The conclusion was that it does not, since it specifies how X.400(88) to X.400(84) mapping will be performed in the Internet. However, it was felt that RARE ought to be involved.

    9.6 X.400-82 Mapping

      This item led to similar discussions as X.400(88) above: who owns the standard, where is change controlled, and how does this progress through the standards track? In this case, it clearly belongs in the X.400 working group of the IETF. Again, RARE involvement is highly desirable.

        [Action 1/7/92]: ExecD: Draft a message relaying concerns and questions for the two X.400 standards (X.400(88) Downgrading and X.400-822 Mapping) and send to the IESG.

10. FUTURE MEETINGS

    • January 30, 1992 Conference call

    • February 27, 1992 Conference call

    • March 16 (6-10PM) + March 17, 1992 at IETF in San Diego.

    • June 19, 1992, at ISOC/INET ’92 meeting in Kobe, Japan.

APPENDIX A – AGENDA

    1. Action Item Review

    2. Status Reports
    o ISOC — Cerf
    o RFC copyright language — Cerf
    o ROAD Group — Ford [defer to end of day]
    o RFC status — Postel
    o Architecture Retreat Plans — ExecD

    3. Policy on Assignment and Usage of .IP Network Numbers
    o IEPG recommendation — Gross
    o Garbage-collect unused numbers?

    4. Future of the IRTF

    5. Internationalization of the IAB and its Activities

    6. IAB Position on Whitepages Service — Chapin, Huitema

    7. Standards Process Document

    8. Internet Information Dissemination
    o IMR, ISOC newsletter, many mailing lists…
    o Internet [Society?] news groups
    o iab-interest mailing list?

    9. Standards Issues
    o Ethernet MIB
    o User-Friendly Naming
    o BGP NEXT-HOP-SNPA Attribute
    o RIP II
    o X.400(88) Downgrading
    o X.400-1822


APPENDIX B — ACTION ITEM STATUS SUMMARY

    New Actions:

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Cerf: Write summary of his instructions to patent and copyright attorneys.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Cerf: Revisit letter to IEEE on overlapping standards activities.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Postel (IANA): Coordinate network number assignment policy with the NIC, and then publicize policy.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Postel: Propose list of research deliverables for IRSG.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross, Leiner: Document steps being taken to move towards internationalization of IETF and IAB activities.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Develop proposal for handling IETF growth.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Develop proposal for IETF internationalization.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Gross: Publish RFC defining structure of IETF.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Update Standards Procedures RFC with obvious changes, and circulate result to IAB and IESG prior to publication.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Arrange BOF at March ’92 IETF, to discuss standards procedures.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Announce Proposed Standard state of Ethernet MIB.

      [ACTION 1/7/91]: ExecD: Draft announcement of User-Friendly-Naming status.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: ExecD: Re-send question concerning BGP Next-HopSNPA to IESG.

      [ACTION 1/7/92]: Huitema, Lauck: Draft statement of technical concerns about RIP II.

      [Action 1/7/92]: ExecD: Draft a message relaying concerns and questions for the two X.400 standards (X.400(88) Downgrading and X.400-822 Mapping) and send to the IESG.

    Pending Actions:

      [ACTION 12/19/9]: Chapin: Draft statement concerning IAB charter and context for second ISOC newsletter.

      [ACTION 11/91]: RFC Editor: Publish STD RFC.

      [ACTION 11/91]: Cerf: Get an attorney’s advice on statement regarding reproduction to be included on RFCs.

      [ACTION 11/91]: Cerf: Get an attorney’s advice on copyright issues for Internet-Drafts.

      [ACTION 11/91]: Chapin: Revise the draft IAB charter and propose it to the ISOC Board of Trustees.

      [ACTION 11/91]: Cerf: Produce a (non-RFC) document suggesting an appropriate policy statement in favor of the DNS, with a cover letter directed to the Milnet operators.

      [ACTION 11/91]: Cerf, Braun: Draft appropriate statement about the use of X.500 in the future.

      [ACTION 10/2/91]: Gross, Leiner: Re-edit Informational document on OSPF as common IGP, to strengthen case.

      [ACTION 10/91]: Postel [IANA]: Publicize policy on nondiscriminatory assignment of top-level DNS names and a procedure for settling disputes.

      [ACTION 6/91]: Kent: Send his draft on user authentication to WGC.

      [ACTION 5/29/91]: Gross: Draft a general statement of IAB policy on standardization of encapsulations within IP.

      [ACTION 4/29/91]: Kent, Cerf, Braun, Lynch: Draft a document summarizing IAB/IETF actions to promote Internet security.

      [ACTION 1/91]: Cerf: Revise summary of the export control policy to include DEC comments.

      [ACTION 1/29/9]: Chapin, Huitema: Draft new IAB position paper on Whitepages service.

      [ACTION 10/90]: Postel: Try to publish all acceptable-use policies.

      [ACTION 4/90]: Gross/Coya: Send message to IAB on how to use IETF WG database.

      [ACTION 4/90]: Postel: Draft “Principles of the Internet [Architecture]” document.

    Completed Actions [Note: "OBE" means "Overtaken by Events"]:

      OBE: [ACTION 12/19/91] Gross: Prepare draft of address assignment policy statement for Jan 92 IAB meeting.

      DONE/OBE: [ACTION 12/19/91] Postel (IANA): Prepare draft of domain name assignment policy statement for Jan 92 IAB meeting.

      DONE: [ACTION 12/19/91] Chapin, ExecD: Plan agenda for 2-day architecture retreat in Boston.

      DONE: [ACTION 11/91]: Chapin: Draft subsection on intellectual property.

      DONE: [ACTION 11/91]: ExecD: Update and publish Future Internet Architecture document.

      DONE: [ACTION 11/91]: Huitema and Kent: Respond to IESG and Steve Hardcastle-Kille with a summary of the IAB’s reservations on UFN, mentioning that there was considerable discussion.

      DONE: [ACTION 11/91]: Leiner: Ask CCIRN for permission to publish CCIRN news in IAB or ISOC publication, e.g., the IMR.

      DONE: [ACTION 11/91] Cerf: Send to the IAB members the current descriptive information and the proposed bylaws of ISOC.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91]: Gross ask Security Area Director to pursue testing of TLSP in the Internet.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91]: RFC Editor, Hardcastle-Kille: Retitle and revise Status of Memo to indicate restricted applicability of interim IP address encoding in NSAPs.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91]: ExecD: Revise email ballot form.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91] ExecD: install Standards Procedures document as Internet Draft for a 30-day period.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91] Kent, Huitema, Chapin: Work to articulate issues concerning user-friendly X.500.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91] Cerf: Talk to principles and convene first meeting of Routing & Addressing task group.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/2/9]: Chapin: Discuss ISO proposal for presentation address encoding with Hardcastle-Kille, and report.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/2/91]: ExecD: Produce final version of Standards Procedures Document and distribute it.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/2/91] Cerf: Discuss email ballots #48 and #50 with Hardcastle-Kille.

      DONE: [ACTION 10/91] Cerf: Ask an attorney to review patent and copyright section of Standards Procedures document.

      CANCELLED: [ACTION 6/91]: Gross: Redraft letter to IEEE on overlapping standards activities.


APPENDIX C: PENDING RFC STATUS (2 January 1992)

    CURRENTLY PENDING RFCs

      * = changed, updated, or added since last edition

      * a) Protocol Process – Braden: made an I-D 12/4/91
       
      Can begin RFC publishing process 12/16/91.
      To be issued at same time as b.
      OOPS – A “last call” was issued with deadline for comments of 1/10/92

        b) RFC on STD RFC – Postel: made an I-D 12/5/91

       
      Can begin RFC publishing process 12/16/91.
      To be issued at same time as a.

        c) IAB Official Protocol Standards – Postel: expired 11/30/91
       
      To be edited to be consistent in terminology with a and b above, then issued at the same time. Edits to include recent standards actions already done.

      * d) FDDI-MIB – should be out 12/10/91
       
      Final details to be verified with author.
      Still waiting on author – 2 Jan 92.

        e) Bradley-ipoverframe – Postel to edit & consult authors
       
      RFC Editor responsible for delay.

        f) Bradley-iarp – Postel to edit & consult authors

       
      RFC Editor responsible for delay.

        g) NTP V3 – waiting on author: Mills still in “testing” mode

        h) Armstrong-MTP – Postel to read
       
      RFC Editor responsible for delay.

        i) Overview of X.500 by Kille – waiting on IESG since 13-May-91
       
      This has been withdrawn to be replaced by a substantial rewrite by multiple authors now in progress.

        j) PPP RFC Revised – waiting on IESG
       
      A revised PPP document somehow came to the RFC Editor without a recommendation from the IESG, so the RFC Editor sent it to the IESG. The assumption is that substantial work is being done in the WG and that a new PPP document will emerge.

      * k) Nelson-MSP – waiting on IESG
       
      This is a long sad story with repeated attempts by the RFC Editor to get IESG approval. Each attempt seems to result in a cycle of thought, comment, and agreement; about 9/10s completed.

      * l) Resnick – Mail Checking – waiting on IESG

        m) Assigned Numbers – a revision is long over due
       
      An IANA private online draft is kept up to date, but a complete review is need to make sure it is correct and covers all it should.

    COMPLETED SINCE LAST EDITION (of 5-DEC-91)

      These showed up as pending last time and are now done.

      1) Ethernet-MIB – RFC 1284, published 7 Dec 91

      2) Bridge-MIB – RFC 1286, published 13 Dec 91

      3) DECNET-MIB – RFC 1289, published 20 Dec 91
      Note: originally submitted in PS, but published only in ASCII.

      4) Finger – RFC 1288, published 19 Dec 91

    RFCs ISSUED SINCE LAST EDITION (actually since 1-NOV-91)

      1272 – Internet Accounting: Background

      1273 – A Measurement Study of Changes in Service-Level
      Reachability in the Global TCP/IP Internet: Goals, Experimental Design, Implementation, and Policy Considerations

      1274 – The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema

      1275 – Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory

      1276 – Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to provide an Internet Directory using X.500

      1277 – Encoding Network Addresses to support operation over nonOSI lower layers

      1278 – A string encoding of Presentation Address

      1279 – X.500 and Domains

      1280 – Not Issued Yet

      1281 – Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet

      1282 – BSD Rlogin

      1283 – SNMP over OSI

      1284 – Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types

      1285 – Not Issued Yet

      1286 – Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges

      1287 – Future Internet Architecture

      1288 – Finger

      1289 – DECNET MIB

      1290 – Searching for Treasure

      1291 – Potential Services for Mid-Level Networks

      1292 – Catalog of X.500 Implementations