MINUTES FOR APRIL 2 1995 IAB MEETING
Mike St. Johns
- Yakov Rekhter: Publish the document on routing in multiprovider Internet.
- Abel Weinrib: Request support for IAB teleconferences from CNRI.
- Lixia Zhang and Brian Carpenter: Study relationship of IP over ATM and int-serv work.
- Yakov Rekhter: Last call and publish the “routing in multiprovider Internet” document as an informational RFC.
- Christian Huitema: Arrange for signing of (and sign) ISO/JTC1/SC6 agreement during open IAB meeting at Danvers.
- Christian Huitema: Prepare security “propaganda” (summary of what is going on in security coordinating with Jeff Schiller).
- 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. [DONE]
- Lixia Zhang: Make progress on the special group on non-provider based addressing.
- Jon Postel and Abel Weinrib: Develop a draft document outlining the rules, practices, etc. for the Internet Research Task Force.
- 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.
- John Romkey: Create report on information infrastructure workshop.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
1. Agree on agenda.
2. Review of outstanding action items.
3. Prepare for ONC/RPC review
First, the format of the meeting on Tuesday was finalized.
Comments were received from:
These people have been invited to give 10 minute presentations. Each talk will be followed by 5 minutes of questions from IAB members. After all of the invited presentations, statements will be invited from the audience, limited to 2 minutes each and with no repeat speaking allowed.
The discussion then turned to the issues that are being considered in the inquiry.
The original complaint appears to have three major themes:
- Some people have been too slow in getting the agreement with Sun signed (ISOC and IESG). ISOC, in particular, has not provided the legal framework and protection and responsiveness that was implied by their creation. The question before the IAB is whether this demonstrate reasonable prudence or paralysis.
- What is the underlying cause? Related to the issue of whether RFC 1602 is the rule or a documentation of current practice, Dave Crocker asserts that the IETF is supreme and can change things whenever it wants. What is the status of RFC 1602–is it the law?
- If RFC 1602 is the law, it is broken. In particular, section 5 is too demanding on contributors and is unclear (e.g., regarding who is empowered to sign).
The IAB expects to address these areas of concern in its finding to be announced at the open IAB meeting Wednesday evening.
One clear cause of delay and difficulty is the requirement that a contract must be negotiated and signed by the ISOC and the organization trying to provide technology. Clearly, it is in the communities interest to only adopt proprietary technology that will be “fairly” licensed. (This is the Simpson/Motorola case.) Can a public statement by the donating organization (promising “fair and equitable and reasonable” licensing, etc.) meet this requirement, rather than an agreement with IESG/ISOC? A revised RFC 1602 could say that such a public statement is what is expected before standardization by an IETF working group. The working group then decides whether the statement is adequate, although providing a standard template is clearly desirable. The public statement might also include statements on “patent status”. It was agreed that this appears to be a promising avenue, and that it should be input to the POISED IP working group.
Another cause for confusion is that RFC 1602 is “only” informational. (It is hard to imagine that RFC 1602 should appear on the standards track, since it describes process, not protocols.) Perhaps we need a “Process” series of documents that includes an extended last call process like a standard but not the various levels, the requirement for interoperating implementations, etc. The series might also include a (standard) escape route for quickly changing the process when it is found to be broken. For instance, the escape clause might say something like “if the IESG chair concludes that the process is not working, then someone (IAB?) may modify the process, perhaps automatically requiring that there be an extended call for the resulting docments.”
4. Clean house for next IAB/prepare legacy
Jay Allard (Microsoft)
Chris Weider (Bunyip)
Erik Hauser (SURFnet)
Bob Moskowitz (Chrysler)
Mike St. Johns
For the Wednesday night open IAB meeting, what do we want to present as our legacy?
It was decided to:
- Show a list of this year’s action items
- Describe what we did of importance:
4 RFCs, information infrastructure workshop, etc.
- Highlight areas of focus this year:
The discussion then turned to “the vision thing”–what it mean for the IAB to do architecture, etc. In particular, what are the high-leverage points that we should be focusing on? Is it multimedia over the Internet?
In particular, it was agreed that the IAB should give more attention to integrated services over the Internet, including the work being done in the Int-serv working group, which is explicitly rearchitecting the Internet. One area of concern is the interaction between IP layer service guarantees and the guarantees available from underlying ATM networks; Lixia and Brian offered to look into this.
5. Review Yakov’s RFC on routing in the multiprovider Internet
Publish it after editing.
6. Agenda for Wednesday’s meeting.
Review of the IAB’s year.
Revival of the IRTF.
Formal signature of ISOC agreement.
Report on ONC/RPC review.
7. ISOC issues.
As of December, the ISOC budget was looking tight and some ISOC trustees felt that the money budgeted to support the IETF ($100k) was not required for running IETF. A motion to delete this funding was passed very narrowly by ISOC. These events do not appear to demonstrate movement in the right direction–towards ISOC funding of all IETF activities and eventual independence from US government funding. However, Jon Postel reported that the ISOC is currently considering providing $250k to IETF and IESG; the IAB thinks this would be a good thing.
The discussion then turned to the question of the real cost of running the IETF. At present, the accounting is not available, which makes it hard to figure out how much is actually required to support the IETF. Also, it was felt by some that the ISOC accounting should be made more readily available. Thus, it was proposed that the IAB request:
- complete accounting of IETF secretariat accounting.
- complete accounting of ISOC accounting.
- plan in place for a transition to broad-based funding of IETF by ISOC.
Brian Carpenter will draft a statement to this effect and send it to the IAB list for comment.
8. Geographical addressing group.
Slow progress is being made.
It was agreed that getting support for the IAB teleconferences would be a good thing. One possibility is to ask CNRI; another is to ask ISOC.
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available online http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.