MINUTES FOR JULY 9, 1996 IAB TELECONFERENCE
Teleconference Tuesday August 13, 10-12 Eastern Time.
- Steve Bellovin: Finalize edits on the cryptography statement, publish as an ID; (Brian will then forward to the ISOC).
- Chris Weider: “Assigned numbers should be available from an online dictionary”–figure out what to do.
- Brian Carpenter: Get relevant ISO standards documents (e.g., 10646) available to the IETF community online.
- John Klensin: Arrange for a presentation on caching and replication at next IETF.
- Abel Weinrib: Submit IRTF procedures document for publication as BCP.
- Bob Moskowitz and Steve Bellovin: Produce list of goals for security architecture workshop.
- Brian Carpenter: Get Bob Hinden (or someone else) to produce a document articulating the technical value of IPv6 beyond large addresses.
- John Klensin: Prepare Jim Gettys note as an Internet Draft, so that we can decide whether or not to release it along with the spec. during the next conference call.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
1. last call on any minutes still pending
2. review actions and drafts in progress
Character set workshop report–out next week.
Cryptography statement–see below.
IRTF procedures–submit as BCP.
4. IESG liaison report
5. Cryptography statement
There was consensus that the current draft (modulo simple wording changes) should be published as a draft and submitted to the ISOC.
6. IPv4 address behaviour (draft document)
The comment was made that the document needs to make sure to capture developers’, operators’ and users’ perspective.
There was considerable discussion about whether the document should discuss IPv6, or concentrate solely on current usage of IPv4 addresses. It would be strange not to mention IPv6 in an architectural document. The point was made that IPv6 need not fall into traps that IPv4 has–there exists the address space and time to get it right. Should the statement be that IPv6 should use EIDs (also good for security)? The problem with EIDs is that there does not exist a detailed proposal that works. After discussion, it was agreed that we will table further IPv6 discussion until the IPv4 text is more fleshed out.
A second point discussed is whether application level gateways and NAT boxes are more similar than the text implies. It was agreed that the document should more explicitly state that there is a whole spectrum of intermediate cases between a simple NAT box and a pure application level gateway.
7. other Montreal follow-ups
The issue has been raised as to what we (in the IETF) should do or not do in the accounting, payment and settlement space. This is delicate–the operators believe that this is their business. Also, there exist legal anti-trust concerns that must be trod upon with care. The question is to what extent it is OK to develop standard mechanisms for measurement and accounting, as well as mechanisms for exchanging information across ISPs on pricing and other policy treatment for premium services.
Separate from the legal issues, there is the question of whether the IETF should work in this area. There appeared to be general consensus of the IAB that it is appropriate for the IETF to work in this area as long as the focus is on engineering protocols and mechanisms. The comment was made that we would need a good mature chair to guide working group(s) working in this area.
Regular teleconference second Tuesday of the month at 10:00 AM Eastern Time.
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, email@example.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available at http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins. Also, visit the IAB Web page at http://www.iab.org/iab.