Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 1994-07-05

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1994»IAB Minutes 1994-07-05

MINUTES FOR JULY 5 1994 IAB TELECONFERENCE

PRESENT:

    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Robert Elz
    Elise Gerich
    Christian Huitema
    Paul Mockapetris
    Yakov Rekhter
    John Romkey
    Mike St. Johns
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang

NEXT MEETING:

    Face to face meeting in Toronto Sunday July 24 at 2:00

NEW ACTION ITEMS:

  • John Romkey: Plan IAB retreat on interesting applications. A series of short term items were identified related to planning the “interesting applications” workshop. They are listed under agenda item 3.

  • Brian Carpenter: produce a document by Toronto for us to talk about in the IAB meeting on Sunday–starting with recommendations, then summarizes input.

OLD ACTION ITEMS:

  • Christian Huitema and Steve Crocker: prepare a brief note outlining follow-up to security retreat.

  • Dave Sincoskie: Prepare a short straw “vision.”

  • Yakov Rekhter: Prepare a review of “routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet.”

  • Elise Gerich: Create a sample report/press release.

NOTES:

    1- Agree on the agenda

    2- Review of pending action items (status update)

    • Christian Huitema and Steve Crocker: prepare a brief note outlining follow-up to secu. retreat
      (ongoing, will do it soon)

    • Dave Sincoskie: Send copies of the U.S NRC report on NII to IAB (still open–I recently sent a pointer to this report to the iab list).
      (now DONE)

    • Dave Sincoskie: Prepare a short straw “vision”
      (still open)

    • Yakov Rekhter: Prepare a review of “routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet.”
      (we will save this subject for Toronto)

    • Brian Carpenter: Gather information on ISOC/IAB/IETF image.
      (Done–see agenda item 4.)

    • Elise Gerich: Create a sample report/press release
      (discuss during image discussion)

    • John Romkey: Plan IAB retreat on interesting applications.
      (See agenda item 3.)

    3- Retreat on interesting applications

        We have all seen John’s report. There are urgent actions:
          Need to set the date. (October 12-14? Maybe reserve 2 dates?)
          Need to find a host (MCI?)
          Need to send the invitations. More properly, need to decide
            on invitation process. I suggest IAB members + Area directors for Applications, USIS, security + wg chairs + experts.
            Have to be sure to incorporate enough new blood…

      The workshop will be held on October 12-14, 1994.

      The East Coast of the U.S. is preferred (by Europeans); MCI may be able to host it in the Washington area.

      A title for the workshop, a list of people to invite, and a call for white papers on the topic are needed. John Romkey will take care of these. The call for white papers will be broadly circulated inside and outside of the IETF community to encourage broad participation from people with different perspectives. Some slots at the workshop will be filled by picking randomly from those who submit white papers.

      The focus of the workshop will be on the architecture of an Internet Information Infrastructure to support applications such as WAIS, Archie, etc. The infrastructure includes file naming, white pages, moving money around, caching, transport for short transaction-oriented services, etc. The goal is to talk about applications (things of interest to end user) to focus attention on the infrastructure and try to develop quantitative requirements on the network.

      It would be good to develop some scenarios that expose the issues in advance of the workshop. The white papers may provide this.

    4- The ISOC/IAB/IETF image.

        We have seen Brian’s report (thank you, Brian).
        Now, what do we do?

      A few more people will talk to Brian at Toronto; he will prepare a new report after Toronto.

      The main area of concern he has found so far is that the community is seen as self perpetuating (if we disagree, we shout at people until they go away) and too closed. Trying to put new things through the process is an invitation for everyone to try to change it (in uninteresting ways). This may be good (the point of the process), but sometimes it is perceived as simply a bunch of IETF people who want to put their mark on things even if they don’t know that much about them. It was observed that part of what goes on in the IETF is often engineering rather than standardization (clarity of documentation, shaking out bugs, etc.) of a well-defined thing. One proposal is to explicitly distinguish development/engineering/design from standardization, thus allowing outside designed things to be submitted to the standardization step immediately (perhaps go directly to draft-standard?). In either case, change control is ceded to the IETF, which may be a problem for some people.

      Another, rather different, concern is that the IETF may be becoming too ISOC/ITU like.

      The question was discussed of whether the IETF should be presented as “the place where you make standards for Internet.” Does the IETF have a monopoly on standards setting? If so, is this bad?

      An issue that came up often: The IAB should do more outreach to the IETF, and to the outside world (industry and government).

      Related issues:

        The ISOC board has requested that the IAB come up with a document about expected code of conduct on net.

      If the IAB were to prepare some sort of press reports to try to improve its image, the reports would have to be aimed at a wide distribution, and would have to be substantial to get attention. The goal would be to reach outside the community. It was pointed out that making it available wider than the net would cost money.

    5- The IPng announcement

        As Steve Crocker said, lets discuss our role in this process…

      In the current IPng process, the IAB was carefully not involved in order to not look partisan because it might be called on to resolve disputes. Now that the contentious phase is over, a decision has been made, and there is only a single path, the IAB should get involved to work on the aspects of IPng that impact the future architecture of the Internet. In particular, the IAB should NOT work on the assumption that the IAB should not be involved at all.

    6- The Toronto agenda

        What about preparing the next meeting?

      Sunday meeting:

        image
        Yakov’s routing report
        RFCs 1627 and 1597

      Wednesday evening “Open IAB Meeting:”

        announce application workshop and call for white papers
        image (?)
        poised report
        ISO MOU presentation–what they filled in (pretty much symmetric)

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, abel@bellcore.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available in the directory http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.