Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 1993-07-13

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1993»IAB Minutes 1993-07-13

Summary of Internet Architecture Board Meeting

Amsterdam, NL, July 13, 1993


       5.1 Shared Media Architecture
       5.2 Internet Security Infrastructure
    This document summarizes the meeting of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held at the RAI Convention Center in Amsterdam, NL, in conjunction with the 27th IETF meeting. The IAB attendees were:

      Bob Braden, ISI [ExecD]
      Phill Gross, ANS [IETF Chair]
      Christian Huitema, INRIA [Chair]
      Steve Kent, BBN
      Jun Murai, Wide
      Yakov Rekhter, IBM
      John Romkey, ELF
      Dave Sincoskie, Bellcore
      Mike St Johns, ARPA
      Bob Hinden, Sun [IESG Rep]

    Vint Cerf, President of ISOC, also attended. There were approximately 110 observers and some lively interchanges.


    The ExecD reported on the latest draft revision of RFC-1310, defining the Internet standards procedures. This revision, known informally as “1310bis”, has been published as an Internet Draft and announced to the IETF membership. Lyman Chapin, the IESG member concerned with standards procedures, has consented to prepare the next draft.

    Cerf reported that counsel will soon complete the review and revision of the intellectual property section of 1310bis. In particular, he expects substantial revision of the section on copyrights. The new language will express the IETF preference for unencumbered access to specifications, but it will allow the IETF to adopt encumbered specifications when necessary, as long as the owner agrees to fair and “reasonable” cost access. Claims that are known at the time of standards development must be declared. Should there be a later assertion of a claim, the IESG could decide to withdraw a standards track specification, even a full Standard.

    It was suggested that a session at the next IETF meeting discuss intellectual property rules for the Internet community.

    It was agreed that the document could go through a few more iterations as an Internet Draft with comments from the IETF, but that we should move it into RFC stage within a few months. It is important to put into place a procedure statement that reflects the “New World Order”.

      ACTION: Chapin & Braden: Publish revision of 1310bis as Internet Draft.

      ACTION; Cerf: Provide new intellectual property language.


    Vint Cerf, the President of the Internet Society (ISOC) reported on the status of liaison arrangements with ISO and ITU (see Appendix A). He discussed ISO first.

    The ISOC has requested Category A liaison status with ISO. [To recapitulate, Category A is a peer relationship with another standards organization, such as CCITT. Category B is for industry- wide groups like ECMA. Category C (which is new) is intended to allow ISO to make relationships with “fast moving organizations like ISOC/IETF”, or with industry consortia such as the ATM Forum. Category A and B liaison is with the top-level ISO management; Category C operates only at the working group level. The IAB believes that a peer relationship between ISO and IETF is the most appropriate.]

    ISO referred ISOC’s request for Category A liaison to JTC1 (Joint ISO/IEC Technical Committee 1). JTC1 made a preliminary decision that Category C liaison is sufficient, and referred the matter to its subcommittees. Following the Columbus IETF meeting, the IAB decided that it would be more appropriate to defer consideration of Category C until Category A liaison has received further consideration.

    Cerf reported on discussions among Houldsworth, Chapin, Klensin, and himself, which resulted in a recommendation for the drafting of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to outline what each organization would expect from Category A liaison. The objectives of such an MOU would be (1) to preserve the IETF and ISO principles and procedures; (2) to define the liaison procedures; (3) to identify the points of contact; and (4) to define the responsible parties in ISO, IESG, IAB, and ISOC. In the interim, there could be continued informal collaboration between ISO and IETF on the use of the OSI protocols in the Internet.

    There was extensive discussion among the IAB and the observers. Frank Kastenholz asked: “What’s in it for us?” Huitema referred him to the recent Internet Draft prepared by the IAB on this subject. Jack Houldsworth, representing JCT1 SC6, and Peter Furniss, representing SC21 (OSI upper layers) were present. Houldsworth pointed out the advantages for the entire industry of convergence to a single set of standards. Several IETF members pointed out the asymmetry of the situation; the IETF is planning to adopt ISO standards, but there are no converse moves, e.g., to adopt SNMP as an ISO standard. It was also noted that while the IETF’s objective in seeking liaison was to “legitimize” IETF-developed protocol standards, legitimization would work both ways. Several speakers urged that the liaison discussions be a negotiation in which the IETF strongly protects its existing and very successful process.

    It was agreed that moving forward to draft a proposed MOU would be useful. Cerf agreed to take responsibility for this, on the ISOC side. It was also agreed that the MOU draft should be published as an Internet Draft, and extended discussion of its implications should take place on some appropriate mailing list. A face-to-face discussion of it should then take place at the next IETF meeting, prior to finalization of the MOU. These steps are required in order that the IETF membership can be fully informed on the agreement and have substantial input.

      ACTION: Cerf: Take responsibility for drafting MOU with ISO.

    Cerf then briefly discussed ITU. The ISOC made application for liaison with ITU under Paragraph 231 of the Geneva Convention, which is for organizations of an international nature. ITU is very interested in liaison, but the process was interrupted by their reorganization. The ITU Secretary General is currently considering the ISOC application. The proposal would involve exchange of documentation and reciprocal invitation to participate in standards work.


    It was agreed to defer discussion of this item until after the IPDECIDE BOF on Wendesday evening. See the minutes of this BOF.


    The IAB has recently gone on record as supporting CIDR classless addressing, to buy time for a new version of IP. It has not been clear how much time will be bought. Discharging an earlier IAB action item, Phill Gross reported on projections of the effects of CIDR on routing table growth and address space exhaustion.

    There is no general consensus on CIDR effectiveness. Dale Johnson summarized different projections of the savings on routing table size due to CIDR.

      NSFnet study: => 25-33% savings
      Alternet study(Andrew) => 50-60% savings
      NIC Data (Claudio) => 50-75% savings
      ?? => 90% savings (if no policy)

    Imposition of policies and “local color” (Allowable Usage Policies) will tend to reduce the effectiveness of CIDR; on the other hand, dynamic host configuration will increase its effectiveness. He concluded that CIDR by itself will be very effective (60% – 90% reduction in routing table sizes), but that policies could negate all this saving.

    There was an extended and lively discussion. Many pointed out the difficulty of making meaningful projections. Major sources of uncertainty include the effect of the new number allocation rules, the registered/connected distinction, the potential effect of CIDR- related management techniques, and the possibility of major new markets like home appliances (!).

    We need published figures with careful definition of the assumptions. It was suggested that the BGP Deployment WG could act as a forum for further discussion of these estimates. Dynamic host configuration was urged. On a more optimistic note, Huitema observed that we have made some progress in the past several years, in slowing the assignment of Class B numbers and in developing CIDR.

      ACTION: Gross: Work with Scott Williamson to get regular publication of registration numbers.

    The ultimate purpose of these estimates is to answer the question: how soon must we develop and begin deployment of IPng? Widely differing opinions were expressed about this, ranging from 1-2 years to almost never.


    Huitema noted that the IAB believes that the two areas of most urgency in the architecture are scaling and security.

    5.1 Shared Media Architecture

      Several working groups in IETF are concerned with implementing IP over shared link-layer media, in particular public data networks such as ATM and SMDS, and several people have suggested different solutions. The problem is to provide address resolution and hop reduction. This issue involves some fundamental assumptions of the Internet architectural, and the IAB felt that it would be useful to consider the problem very generally. Braden, Postel, and Rekhter had taken an action item to think about it. They met in Santa Monica recently and are preparing a report. Braden noted that there are two broad categories of solutions. One is based upon extensions of the routing protocols and host redirect architecture, and the other is based upon proxy address resolution at the link layer.

      Stev Knowles, one of the IETF Area Directors for the Internet area, asked the IAB for advice on his plan to force the IP-over- shared-media working groups to include solutions to the address resolution problems before they can enter any new specifications into the standards track. Hinden observed that in an area of rapid technology development, it is necessary to balance the need for specifications for building products against the desire to create complete and final specifications. Kent thought it was good to encourage the WGs to put all the pieces together. He suggested a resolution to the dilemma: the WGs could develop specs that are complete but have limited applicability. For example, an IP-over-ATM spec might be limited to PVCs until the general address resolution is resolved.

    5.2 Internet Security Infrastructure

      Kent make a presentation on the development of an Internet security infrastructure. A document describing the Internet security architecture will be in Internet Draft form by the end of 1993. It contains 100 pages presently, and is expected to expand to 200. Peter Furniss noted the ISO work in this area.

      Knowles brought up the need for guidance on export controls. St Johns suggested that an FYI on this topic be published and updated frequently.

The meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.