Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 1995-06-07

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1995»IAB Minutes 1995-06-07

MINUTES FOR JUNE 7 1995 IAB TELECONFERENCE

PRESENT:

    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Elise Gerich
    Phill Gross
    Paul Mockapetris
    Robert Moskowitz
    Jon Postel
    Yakov Rekhter
    Chris Weider
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang

NEXT MEETING:

    During INET in Hawaii.

ACTION ITEMS:

    NEW ACTION ITEMS:

    • All: Send architectural principles to the list. Brian will concatenate them.
    • Yakov Rekhter: Prepare a statement re. classless addresses are good, including a discussion of RIP being inadequate in a classless environment.

    OLD ACTION ITEMS:

    • Brian Carpenter: Last call for “Unique addresses are good” document this week, then publish it. [1/2 DONE]
    • Brian Carpenter and Yakov Rekhter: Rewrite and send “names are better than addresses” document to the list.
    • Bob Moskowitz and Jon Postel: Take trademarks and domain names issue to the ILTF and report back on the outcome.
    • Christian Huitema: Edit escape clause to incorporate suggested changes and send out a last call to the IAB and IESG lists. [DONE, BUT NOT PUBLISHED]
    • Abel Weinrib: Send message to IESG saying that we have discussed the “Supporting Humanities…” working group and approve of its creation.
    • Christian Huitema: Send note to IESG re. SC29 liaison.
    • Christian Huitema: Send mail to the IESG and Mike O’Dell expressing appreciation for the code of conduct document and suggesting that we work towards cosigning it with them. [DONE]
    • Phill Gross: Draft IAB web page.
    • Chris Weider: Make sure the information infrastructure workshop report gets published.
    • Christian Huitema: Contact ISO liaison re. relationships with other JTC1 organizations.
    • Christian Huitema: Send note to ISOC (Vint Cerf) suggesting that ISOC pursue becoming a member of ITU.
    • Lixia Zhang and Brian Carpenter: Study relationship of IP over ATM and int-serv work.
    • Christian Huitema: Prepare security “propaganda” (summary of what is going on in security coordinating with Jeff Schiller).
    • Lixia Zhang: Make progress on the special group on non-provider based addressing. –> Change to report on issues.
    • 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.

NOTES:

    1. Agree on agenda.

    2. Review of outstanding action items.

      “Good practices” documents still open; will be done.

    2. Message Way working group charter.

      Questions are being raised as to whether this work belongs within the IETF since it claims to be a protocol at the Internet layer. It is not really an Internet protocol, but the people driving it like the IETF approach to standards setting. The general consensus of the IAB was “why not have it in the IETF?”. However, it was agreed that the charter should be clearer about where the Messageway protocol fits–it is probably really at level 2.5.

      The discussion then turned to the more general issue of whether we should have a clearer statement about what is appropriate for IETF standardization. Now many people now find the IETF standardization stamp attractive. It was agreed to talk about this more at future meetings.

    3. CNRI support of IETF

      Rumors continue to fly concerning CNRI support (or lack of support) for the IETF. This is causing confusion and concern. We need someone to draft a simple statement about support and the relationship between all of the various players.

      Paul Mockapetris reported that the IESG recently looked at the top level numbers, and were generally satisfied. However, the issue of the money promised by ISOC to the IESG needs to be resolved.

      It was proposed that we ask the ISOC president to explain what is going on to the IAB in Hawaii.

    4. Address discussion

        Some objections are to basic principles of the current architecture; it would be a good idea to write them down explicitly.

      Some of the debate over unique addressing comes down to questions about basic principles of the current Internet architecture. This suggests that explicitly stating what these principles are would be a good idea.

      There was general consensus that creating an overview of the Internet architecture would be a good thing to do. It was decided that the IAB will create a first draft document, and then ask for community input to refine it. The other alternative discussed, forming a BOF and then a working group to do generate the document, was felt to be less likely to succeed because of the breadth of the task. However, getting community input early on in the process through an open discussion at, e.g., an IAB meeting would be a good idea. Brian Carpenter, Lixia Zhang and Yakov Rekhter volunteered to coordinate this effort.

      It was agreed that the resulting documents will be used as guidelines, not dogma.

      The discussion then turned to a brainstorming a list of the architectural principles, which resulted in:

        Keep it simple
        No circular dependencies–e.g., in use of DNS.
        Classless addressing is the right way to go.
        IP address should not be changed from source to destination.
        Single network layer (hourglass model).
        Crypto and security issues–Steve Crocker has a list he will send to the IAB list.
        Information infrastructure “wrapped candy model”:
          single network protocol: IP
          single naming locating: URN/URL
          single naming structure

    5. Statement on “classless addresses are good”

      Some people are still running RIP v1. We need to get people to accept that “classful addresses” are wrong/awful/historical, etc. We do need to deal with heterogeneity, but at some point we do expect that the Internet will become completely classless.

      How should this message be delivered? Yakov Rekhter volunteered to write a statement. However, it will be hard to reach the right people–this is really a PR issue.

Future Meetings

    Hawaii meeting:
      Elise will get a room and take notes. Thursday at 7:00.

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.