Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 1995-02-28

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1995»IAB Minutes 1995-02-28

MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1995 IAB TELECONFERENCE

PRESENT:

    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Robert Elz
    Elise Gerich
    Phill Gross
    Christian Huitema
    John Klensin
    Paul Mockapetris
    Jon Postel
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang

NEXT MEETING:

    Teleconference 10-12 EST on Wednesday March 22.

ACTION ITEMS:

    NEW ACTION ITEMS:

    • All: Send suggestions for areas of work and people to lead them for the IRTF.

    • Paul Mockapetris: Pass the “not all rfc are standard” draft by the IESG.

    • Lixia Zhang: Make progress on the special group on non-provider based addressing.

    • Abel Weinrib: Get a slot (early afternoon on Monday or Tuesday preferred) for the ONC inquiry.

    • Christian Huitema: Send a public acknowledgment of appeal to Dave Crocker (and IETF list) and state that we plan to discuss this matter at an open IAB meeting in Danvers.

    • Christian Huitema: Contact the various players re. the ONC inquiry. Gather information and request that they be prepared to speak.

    • Robert Elz: Develop clear statement of the topic of the ONC inquiry.

    • Robert Elz: Start the discovery process: Get advance statements of what they plan to say from the various players.

    OLD ACTION ITEMS:

    • Jon Postel: Prepare a new draft on “Not all RFCs are standard” incorporating the comments received. Get three authors’ review and post as a draft again.

    • Yakov Rekhter: Add examples to the “routing in multiprovider Internet” document.

    • All: (BY Feb. 21!) Rank order the list of open issues in the “routing in multiprovider Internet” document with respect to their criticality.

    • Christian Huitema: Get Vint Cerf to sign the ISO/JTC1/SC6 statement.

    • Jon Postel and Abel Weinrib: Develop a draft document outlining the rules, practices, etc. for the Internet Research Task Force.

    • Yakov Rekhter: Post routing architecture document as an ID from the IAB after asking for final input from the IAB for one week.

    • Christian Huitema: Convince someone to chair a BOF at the next IETF on measurement of Internet service.

    • Abel Weinrib: Ask John Curran to let new IAB members know of Friday meeting.

    • Dave Sincoskie: Call Tony Rutkowski to offer him ownership of the Internet usage survey.

    • Christian Huitema: Get final text of liaison document from Stev Knowles and publish it. change to “close out…”

    • Jon Postel (IANA): Report on problems with the current DNS registry process and possible solutions.

    • Lixia Zhang, Yakov Rekhter and Phill Gross: Write discussion paper on the impact of commercialization on the Internet.

    • Christian Huitema: Write discussion paper on the integration of services and its impact on usage and models of usage.

    • Yakov Rekhter: Revise RFC 1560.

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

NOTES:

    1. Agree on agenda.

    2. Review of outstanding action items.

        Documents on “not all rfc are standard” and “global addresses are good” and “ipv6 address space.”

      “Unique addresses are good” document has been updated by Elise. The document had already been submitted as an ID with a last call in December. It was decided that the draft should now be sent to the registry mailing list with a time out of a week for further comments. After that, it should be passed by the IESG and, if they agree, it should be published.

      No progress to report on “not all rfc are standard” document.

      A new version of “ipv6 address space” is ready for IAB comments. The question was raised of whether it should explicitly state what the initial allocations are. The consensus was that since the initial allocations are not yet set, a specific initial allocation should not be mentioned. The next step is to get the IESG to look at it.

    3. IRTF reorganization

      No progress was reported.

    4. Lixia: what is the planning of action of the special group on addressing?

      No further progress was reported.
      The suggestion was made to encourage a more junior member of the group (presumably with more time available) to help make progress.

    5. ONC-RPC

        a) Get a summary from the facts, as seen from the IESG (Paul M?)
        b) Present what we know now (KRE?)
        c) Decide on a list of actions on ONC/RPC:
          – whom shall we contact?
          – send an ack to D. Crocker
          – get most recent status from Sun, ISOC.
          – set up planning for resolution.
          - prepare report for IETF plenary?

        d) Decide on plan vs RFC-1602.

          – Poised BOF scheduled Monday morning at IETF.
          - IAB position, Analysis (KRE?)

      The discussion started out with Paul Mockapetris providing an overview of his view of the history since he took over as chair of the IESG: Since last April there has existed a version of the legal agreement between Sun and ISOC ready to be signed. However, moving forward with the signing did not happen for reasons that are not clear. More recently, Paul and Bob Hinden negotiated an agreement that they presented in early January to the IETF secretariat and Vint Cerf (for the ISOC society), proposing that Paul sign the agreement “as chair of the IESG for the IETF community.” One problem with this approach is that it is not following the established procedures as outlined in RFC 1602 and thus may increase the legal liability of whoever signs the document.

      This whole debate demonstrates the need for revising RFC 1602, which must be addressed in the POISED2 BOF at the next IETF. Such a revision should include sample agreements for various cases that have been reviewed by a lawyer working for the IETF who understands the issues. Moreover, some opinions were expressed to the effect that RFC 1602 places unreasonably strong requirements on the provider of technology to the IETF, with the danger that transfers of technology that would be of value to the community may be hindered.

      Turning to the actual appeal from Dave Crocker, it was agreed that the IAB must not duck the issue by inaction even though its jurisdiction is unclear in this case. Thus, we must send a public message to Dave Crocker saying we have received his mail and are in the process of gathering additional information.

      It was agreed that the appeal should be addressed in a public IAB session at the next IETF meeting. The inquiry should have a structured format with discovery carried out by the IAB in advance, written statements required of all presenters, and limited discussion from the floor. Statements will be invited from the appealer (Dave Crocker), the appealees (Paul Mockapetris representing the IESG and Vint Cerf or Tony Rutkowski representing the ISOC), and probably from a representative from Sun.

      A draft agenda might look like the following:

        10 minutes: appeal
        10 minutes: Sun and/or Bob Hinden
        10 minutes: iesg chair
        10 minutes: isoc
        30 minutes: floor

      It was also agreed that the IAB’s conclusions on the matter would be announced as soon as possible, but certainly not during the public session.

Future Meetings

    Meetings in Danvers:
      Old IAB will meet Sunday 1-6 before IETF.
      New IAB will meet with IESG on Friday morning.
      Old and new IAB will have dinner Thursday night.

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An on-line copy of these and other minutes are available online http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.