Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 1994-05-24

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1994»IAB Minutes 1994-05-24



    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Robert Elz
    Phil Gross
    Christian Huitema
    Paul Mockapetris
    Jun Murai
    Jon Postel
    Yakov Rekhter
    Dave Sincoskie
    Mike St. Johns
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang


    Teleconference Tuesday July 5 1994 at 10:00 EDT.
    Meeting Sunday July 24 in Toronto before next IETF.


  • Christian Huitema and Steve Crocker: Once Bob Braden has finished and released the security workshop report, prepare a brief note outlining actions that should be taken to follow up and either implement or explore the ideas presented in the report.

  • Christian Huitema: Send a message to John Romkey and Eric Huizer encouraging them to coordinate on planning for the applications workshop.

  • Dave Sincoskie: Send copies of the U.S. National Research Council report on infrastructure for the NII to IAB members.

  • Dave Sincoskie: Prepare a short straw proposal outlining a “vision thing” architecture document.

  • Yakov Rekhter: Prepare a review of existing IETF work related to “Routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet.”


  • Brian Carpenter: Gather information to learn more about the nature and scope of the problems with ISOC/IAB/IETF image. Obtain comments from various communities and report on the results.

  • Elise Gerich: Create a sample report/press release for the month of April.

  • John Romkey: Plan IAB retreat on interesting applications over the Internet. Decide on date and location. Determine problems, agenda, experts to be approached, etc.



        Decide what to do with the minutes from IAB meetings–should they be made publicly available online? ISI offers to make them available via anonymous ftp and WWW access at in directory pub/IAB.

      Yes, send them to iab list for last call for comments and then publish them.

    1) Short report on liaison administrativia

        (we received yet another request from ECMA)

      ISO liaison document will be definitive by next Monday. Few comments received. Will forward to SC6 next week.

      ECMA wants to establish liaison with IETF. IESG will handle this.

    2) Short status report on the security workshop report

        being published now

      Report almost done; should be published as an RFC next week. Also, PSRG is writing a document on security (Steve Kent is involved in this).

    3) The image thing (a report from Brian)

      Christian will send the revised note to the IAB, IESG and ISOC trustees. There was some discussion of whether the IETF is claiming a monopoly on Internet protocols, and, if so, if this is a bad thing. Arguing against the monopoly view, it was pointed out that the WWW applications run over the Internet but were not developed in the IETF.

    4) The application’s workshop

        (a report from John R. on planning progress — if he can join the conference).

      John is not here, so the issue is tabled until next time. We need to make sure to coordinate with Erik Huizer, who is very interested in the workshop.

    5) Where do we place our efforts

        (the “topics” discussion, exploiting the results of the poll).
        So that we have them right in front of us during the discussion, the results were:

          9   Security architecture (focus of recent workshop and report)
          9   Routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet
          6   Scaling (now CIDR, then IPng).
          6   Support for commercial transactions (EDI?)/Electronic payment
          5   The Internet as a system–interaction between the protocols.
          4   Make it easy to use by users.
          3   Mobile computing.
          3   Gigabit & the future Internet.
          2   Operational infrastructure/Framework for operational coordination.
          2   Architecture for distributed applications.
          2   Naming and discovery/Information infrastructure
          2   Accounting.
          1   Resource allocation/Support for real time applications
          1   Multi-protocol architecture.
          1   CSCW tools (whiteboards and such),
              Interaction with public networks — and PTTs.
              Impact on architecture of switched subnets

      There was a lively discussion about how to proceed: whether to write a high level “architectural principles of the Internet” document, or to provide more narrowly focused frameworks for specific important topics. An argument against an architecture document is that writing such a document is hard–you “know good architecture when you see it,” but developing an architecture document that will make a difference is very difficult. Another argument is that one can’t do vision by committee. On the other hand, some members asked “If it is not going to do architecture, why does the IAB exist?”

      The U.S. National Research Council is about to release a report on the architecture for the NII. (This document defines four layers: bearer, transport, middleware, and applications.) These ideas could form the basis for IAB work on the architecture of the future Internet–perhaps the IAB could provide some long-range planning regarding how to get there. One, or more, straw proposals outlining what an architecture document would contain should be written.

      Also, the topic “Routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet” is clearly of interest. The goal is to present preliminary findings on this topic at the Toronto IETF meeting. As a first step, we need a review of the efforts going on in the IETF and discovery of what are the perceived problems in addition to scaling. One important issue is provider selection, which is necessary to enable a competitive environment. Another is support for real time flows.

    Discussion re. ISOC trustees meeting, insurance, etc.

      Is the IETF an organ of the ISOC? Or is it simply a public group that provides input to the IESG, which is the formal standards body? (ANSI may have the second structure–we need to learn more about this.)

      It was felt that the wording of the POISED documents should be tightened to clarify this point. Also, to make clear that the IESG is the final arbiter for technical issues, the IAB for procedural issues. Another area of ambiguity is that while the IESG nominations committee fills area director slots, it is less clear how the areas themselves get created and destroyed.

      It was agreed that these and other points should be raised and discussed on the POISED mailing list. All IAB members have now been added to that list.

      We revisited the question of what documents are required to obtain insurance coverage. It was generally felt (hoped) that the 1994 versions of the following documents would be sufficient:

        RFC 1602
        IESG charter
        IAB charter
        Guidelines for working groups (1603)

      The bottom line: To get this resolved, POISED needs to get going, and the IESG charter has to be written.

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, An online copy of these and other minutes are available in the directory