Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 1995-05-10

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1995»IAB Minutes 1995-05-10



    Jay Allard
    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Robert Elz
    Phill Gross
    Christian Huitema
    Paul Mockapetris
    Robert Moskowitz
    Jon Postel
    Yakov Rekhter
    Chris Weider
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang


    Teleconference Wed June 7, 10-12 EDT.



    • Brian Carpenter: Last call for “Unique addresses are good” document this week, then publish it.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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).
    • All: Send suggestions for areas of work and people to lead them for the IRTF.
    • Lixia Zhang: Make progress on the special group on non-provider based addressing.
    • 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.


    1. Agree on agenda.

    2. Review of outstanding action items.

    3. Unique addresses are good.

      Is this an applicability statement for 1597 or instruction to registry not to tell people that they have to use 1597?
      We should focus on the statement that you should be able to get unique addresses, not on an applicability statement for 1597.
      Bob Moskowitz is working on 1597bis–does this make the IAB statement no longer necessary? He is adding advice on usage of 1597.

      The general consensus was that we want to say that even if you are not planning on connecting to the Internet right now, you are still entitled to unique addresses. However, there is a difference between theory and practice–even if you can get a unique address, it may well not be routable when you want to connect. This is beginning to look similar to the issue of 800-number portability, which was resolved by FCC regulations.

      The issue is “people should carefully understand tradeoff” vs. “non-unique addresses should not be used as temporary addresses.”

    4. Names are better than addresses.

      The proposal that names always be used rather than addresses was greeted with great suspicion by many IAB members. A generic ban on their usage was seen as dangerous. Many services were originally developed without DNS working, so why require that it be working now. Many management applications need to work even without DNS. Also, an application with real time constraints may want to use addresses rather than names, and may want to actually see the address.

      (One novel approach is to create part of the DNS name space that maps directly into addresses. This idea was not pursued too far.)

      In the end, it was agreed that the majority of applications should operate with names, although the option should be open to operate with typed addresses. Really, the point is to do name to address binding as late as possible, and still be able to use the typed address in case the binding mechanism does not work. The real issue is that we don’t want addresses in long term storage–rather, use a longer-lived item which is the name. It was agreed that the document should be rewritten to say this.

    5. Internic rumor on trademark names.

      Internic tries to avoid giving multiple registrations to companies, but companies push back, afraid of losing control of their trademarks. (One relevant comment was that “.com is the slop bucket of the world.”)

      It was felt that this is an ideal topic to take to the Internet Law Task Force (ILTF).

    6. Escape clause.

      Do we want to add John Klensin’s suggested sentences?

      One way to view the escape clause is that it triggers an automatic appeal to the IAB. Thus, perhaps the IESG should issue a two-week last call on the matter before it is handed to the IAB to get community input. Basically, instead of having a joint judgment we would now have a judgment by the IESG chair that is reviewed by the IAB. The consensus was that this reworking of the escape clause should be adopted.

    7. Decision on “Supporting Humanities…” working group charter.

      Does this belong in the IETF? The general consensus was that as long as the USV area is in IETF this is appropriate. We need to think about the broader issues raised, but we approve of the working group in the USV area.

    8. Liaison request with SC29.

      SC29 has requested liaison with IESG. SC29’s charter is “Coordination of audio, video and hypermedia information.” What do we want to do about this particular request, and what do we want in general with the ever increasing numbers of requests for liaison?

      IESG already has people who liaison with other external groups such as ATM forum, SC19, SC21, etc.–they just did not know what to do with this one.

      One idea is to have the IETF secretariat take care of electronically reporting IETF results to a list of organizations. This would require an updated boiler-plate MOU that includes the requirement that a partner has to provide an email address to which quarterly report can be sent. We should suggest to IESG that they get an email address for these people.

    9. Code of conduct from Mike O’Dell.

      This is a good thing…

    10. IAB liaison with IESG.

      Yakov Rekhter was reconfirmed as liaison to the IESG.

    11. RFC process–some (informational) things are junk.

      Do we need a review process for informational RFCs? We were informed that the IESG is worrying about this too.

      In response to a question, the RFC editor informed the IAB that some things do get stopped, although only if the authors give up. However, the text in the introduction may be changed to reflect IESG opinion. Part of the problem is that the RFC editor does not always know what the IESG cares about. This raised the question of whether every document should be reviewed by the IESG, which would put a lot of load on the IESG and the RFC Editor. The IAB consensus was to encourage the RFC editor and IESG to work on this together.

    12. IAB Web page.

      We need one. Phill Gross offered to take this on.

Future Meetings

    teleconference: Wed June 7, 10-12.
    date and time of proposed meeting at INET in Hawaii

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, An on-line copy of these and other minutes are available online