Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 1995-08-08

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1995»IAB Minutes 1995-08-08



    Brian Carpenter
    Steve Crocker
    Robert Elz
    Elise Gerich
    Phill Gross
    Erik Huizer
    Allison Mankin
    Paul Mockapetris
    Robert Moskowitz
    Jon Postel
    Yakov Rekhter
    Chris Weider
    Abel Weinrib
    Lixia Zhang


    Teleconference Tuesday, September 12, 10-12 Eastern time.



    • Brian Carpenter: Draft a letter from the IAB suggesting that the InterNIC tone down the “indemnify” statements in their registration form.
    • Chris Weider: In consultation with application area directors, put together a blue ribbon panel (workshop) to come to closure on character sets.
    • Jon Postel: Deal with interim IPv6 address allocation issue.


    • All: send comments to Phill on IAB page. (
    • Brian Carpenter: Send note to IESG re. SC29 liaison.
    • Chris Weider: Make sure the information infrastructure workshop report gets published.
    • Brian Carpenter: Contact ISO liaison re. relationships with other JTC1 organizations.
    • Lixia Zhang and Brian Carpenter: Study relationship of IP over ATM and int-serv work.
    • Jon Postel and Abel Weinrib: Develop a draft document outlining the rules, practices, etc. for the Internet Research Task Force.
    • 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.


    1. Last call on any minutes still pending

    2. Review action items and drafts in progress.

      Renumbering, Yakov and Brian; circulated to IAB list. Ready for IAB last call. Architectural principles, Brian; circulated to IAB list. Ready for IAB comments.

    3. Brief report from IESG liaison

      Suggestion: Maybe IAB should get into the loop for architecting DNS name space (related to InterNIC fire storm), with the goal of creating lots of names so that naming conflict can be avoided. Not too much enthusiasm was expressed by the IAB.

    4. InterNIC domain policy (do we say anything?)

      The issue is that the InterNIC has been having trouble with disputed names in the .com domain, so they came up with a policy for disputed names. The policy is basically first come first served, along with a trademark special case–making assumption that the one with the trademark is going to eventually prevail. So far, US centric because the InterNIC is located in the US, and all cases so far have been between US entities. However, the .com domain appears international, and there was some feeling that in the medium term we need the international domains to be put on a more international basis covered by international law. Long term, perhaps we need a new naming architecture.

      The short term problem is that the unilateral action by the InterNIC has upset many people. It would probably have been better if they had requested more community input first. Also, the requirement that someone who asks for a registration “indemnifies” the Internic from all damage appears unreasonable. Brian will create a draft letter from the IAB suggesting that the InterNIC consult with other lawyers and tone down this section.

      It was agreed that the prime directive is that we allow people to continue to join the Internet. Thus, it was suggested that we create “ugly” domain names that can be automatically allocated. The assumption is that people will be happier to join with a domain name that looks like a phone number than not join at all. Thus, everyone is entitled to a domain name, but not necessarily the one they like, and short names may be fought over.

    5. Interim IPv6 address allocation

        (raised in open IAB by Jim Bound, any comments from IANA?)

      The problem is that allowing people to allocate addresses randomly would establish a dangerous precedent. Rather, it was felt that the IANA needs to allocate a small range for experimentation, with the understanding that they will be revoked later.

      The general consensus of the IAB was that the IANA should send his suggestion for what to do to the relevant working group chairs, with a timeout, and then just act on it.

    6. RFC 1744

        (requested by Lixia – please tell us the issues)

      Geoff Huston’s RFC suggests changes to address allocation: addresses should be free, allocated on a first come first served basis, but we should start to charge for the management of addresses.

      While there was general agreement with the position “Registries have to be fair, which does not mean they have to be free,” it was not felt that any response to the RFC is required.

    7. Character sets

        (raised by Phill, Chris & Phill please summarize)

      Many techniques are appearing for dealing with non-ASCII character sets. This is very political, but we still need to provide leadership for compatibility for the Internet information infrastructure.

      Two options were discussed:

      1. We could make a general statement that the Internet needs compatibility, which would make no difference.
      2. Get behind the fairly reasonable consensus that is appearing on UNICODE with appropriate constraints. (Even the New York Times says that Unicode is the answer…)

      Because the Internet is the focal point for this need, there was some feeling that the IAB needs to address it.

      It was agreed that Chris Weider will put together a blue ribbon panel (workshop) to come to closure on character sets.

    8. MIME type registration

      Current procedure is that there is a discussion on a mailing list about new MIME types; once consensus is reached, the IANA registers it. Someone needs to figure out when consensus is reached. Right now, John Klensin is doing it. Should we formalize this as a working group with a chair? However, working groups aren’t supposed to have a long term existence…

      It was observed that the IANA may ask for advice as part of the registration process, and can get the advice however it wants. It was generally agreed that we need a 1602-bis-bis that describes how such things are registered (and the appeals process).

      An issue that was discussed was that some types are not clearly specified (e.g., MS Word), but are used very widely. In addition, who should be able to register a particular type. One possibility is for MIME types for commercial products with no public spec to also register the appropriate programs for viewing them. However, this is licensed code, and there was uneasiness at having IANA in the loop for distribution of commercial software.

Future Meetings

    Second Tuesday every month, 10-12 US Eastern time.

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