MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 7, 1995 IAB TELECONFERENCE
Mike St. Johns
Teleconference Tuesday Feb. 28, 10-12 EST
- Jon Postel: Prepare a new draft on “Not all RFCs are standard” incorporating the comments received. Get three authors’ review and post as a draft again.
- Yakov Rekhter: Add examples to the “routing in multiprovider Internet” document.
- All: (BY Feb. 21!) Rank order the list of open issues in the “routing in multiprovider Internet” document with respect to their criticality.
- Christian Huitema: Get Vint Cerf to sign the ISO/JTC1/SC6 statement.
- Jon Postel and Abel Weinrib: Develop a draft document outlining the rules, practices, etc. for the Internet Research Task Force.
- Elise Gerich: Update document on globally unique addresses.
- Yakov Rekhter: Post routing architecture document as an ID from the IAB after asking for final input from the IAB for one week.
- Mike St. Johns: Talk to Jon Postel re. rewording of the letter from the IAB to the trustees re. ownership of the address space.
- Elise Gerich: Get RFC 1466 revised and reviewed by the appropriate people.
- Christian Huitema: Convince someone to chair a BOF at the next IETF on measurement of Internet service.
- Abel Weinrib: Ask John Curran to let new IAB members know of Friday meeting.
- All: Provide feedback to Yakov on his paper about “routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet.”
- Dave Sincoskie: Call Tony Rutkowski to offer him ownership of the Internet usage survey.
- Christian Huitema: Get final text of liaison document from Stev Knowles and publish it.
- 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.
- Christian Huitema and Steve Crocker: prepare a brief note outlining follow-up to security retreat.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
- The “not all RFC are standards” draft. Should we update, publish, last call?
Status: comments received on ID last call.
- The “unique addresses are beautiful” draft. ditto.
Will be published today.
Elise has also been working on revision of RFC 1466.
- The working group on Internet measurements. Did we progress?
No definite progress to date.
- The design team on alternative to provider addresses. ditto.
Lixia Zhang has six experts (Peter Ford, Jon Postel, Dave Clark, Lixia Zhang, Steve Deering, Yakov Rekhter) who have agreed to serve. Expects preliminary results by April IETF.
- Yakov’s document on routing in multi-provider Internet. Should he/we publish it?
Comments on the document:
The document tackles the problem of how to do routing in large internets and the cost of managing the routing. Other issues related to multi-provider Internets are not addressed, including performance of routes, what contracts are, etc.
Many interesting open issues are raised in the document–perhaps a listing by priority would be useful.
The document might also be stronger with addition of real life examples of real life questions.
Yakov will add examples, and everyone will send him a rank-ordered list of the research question to guide him in prioritizing the questions.
- The ISO/JTC1/SC6 statement is ready at last. Do we publish now or do we want one more last call?
Everyone agreed to get it signed and over with.
- What is the IRTF.
- What is the relation with the new IEEE technical committee which Lixia is sponsoring.
- Should we spawn of the new group that Mike Schwartz wants to lead with Quaterman on “Internet survey”?
- By the way, what is the procedure for creating and or terminating research groups?
- Research groups are closed. How do we guarantee that they are closed “fairly”?
1- Review of the agenda.
2- Short reports on ongoing actions:
3- First soul searching item, the IRTF.
The discussion opened with observations on the IRTF: The IRTF looks like a collection of private clubs. How are they related to the Internet? The groups differ from IETF working groups in that IRTF groups are based on shared common interest rather than focused on a specific project. The groups are currently very static and very few of them are active.
Given these observations, the question was then what to do with the IRTF. Possibilities include doing away with it completely or making it into something new. Following the second path, the question became what the IRTF should be. It was agreed that it should be a place where issues can be worked that are not yet ready for standardization. Examples of topics that might fall into this category include routing, the architecture of the Web, global naming, application infrastructure, cooperative systems, inter-provider models, measurements, Internet over ATM architecture, and quality of service. Moreover, perhaps some things going on in the IETF should actually be in the IRTF and future topics that are brought to the IETF but are judged to be too early for standardization could start up as IRTF groups.
Generally, it was agreed that the IRTF has value in so far as it encourages work and publication in areas of importance to the development of the Internet. However, at present few of the IRTF groups are active, and even relatively active groups have no reporting requirements or other ways for interested members of the community to learn about what they are doing. It was agreed that regular reporting of meetings and progress should be required of all groups, as well as a mechanism for new members to be appointed (presumably by a group itself, either the chair or the members). It was also suggested that groups might have two mailing lists, one a working list for the members of the group and the other a list of interested people for announcements of a more general nature.
While Jon Postel has the position of IRTF chair, he stated that his other duties keep him from devoting sufficient time to revitalizing the IRTF. Thus, it was agreed that a new IRTF chair should be appointed. After a discussion, Abel Weinrib was nominated for the position by Lixia Zhang and was chosen by the consensus of the IAB.
Discussion then turned to the delicate issue of open versus closed membership. Many IAB members are uncomfortable with closed IRTF groups, which seems counter to the Internet culture. However, it was recognized that while openness is required in the consensus forming process that defines standards, it may have to be sacrificed to nurture the relatively long-term collaboration and small size that are the hallmark of successful research collaborations. One way to address the issue of fairness would be to allow the formation of multiple groups working in the same general area. New groups should be formed by a lightweight process that includes minimally submission of a charter, a chair, and a list of founding members.
Jon Postel and Abel Weinrib will draft a document outlining proposed rules for the IRTF.
Meetings in Danvers:
Old IAB will meet Sunday 1-6 before IETF.
New IAB will meet with IESG on Friday morning.
Old and new IAB will have dinner Thursday night.
Feb. 28, 10-12 EST
March 22, 10-12 EST
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available in the directory http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.