MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 IAB TELECONFERENCE
- All: Think about potential problems and potential cross-disciplinary areas which are broader than the current IETF areas.
- Alison Mankin: Check with IESG re. designing a lightweight process for MIME-type registrations.
- All: Comment on the architectural principles draft that Brian sent to the list.
- 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.
- Chris Weider: Make sure the information infrastructure workshop report gets published.
- 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.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
1. Review actions and drafts in progress.
Renumbering draft: passed to IESG for approval; waiting to hear from them. IPv6 allocation draft: passed to IESG to be published as a BCP. architectural principles draft: not many comments.
2. Report from IESG liaison
None of our liaisons took part in the call.
3. Top Level Domain strategy
The storm on the ietf list has calmed down.
Nonsense domains are a real problem. People who have had valid domain requests rejected are up in arms.
Should we suggest to the IANA that .com be taken away from the Internic and given to someone who charges real money for this? More generally, who should worry about this sort of thing, and if it is not us, whose job is it?
Should this be discussed at Dallas?
It was agreed that we need to talk about this again when the IANA is present.
4. MIME type registration
- – follow up, if J. is on the call
It is ambiguous as to who should form the consensus as to whether a new MIME type is OK, in particular MIME types for commercial products. Also, there needs to be a clear registration process. Security issues also need to be addressed, but at present no one is in the position to decide about security.
The IAB agreed that it is unreasonable to expect any single person to make the decisions. It might be better to have a group. We could deal with MIME types the same way that we do MIBs–standards track documents, with comments, last calls, etc. This raises the question whether an IETF last call is better than a “type mailing list” last call. However, concern was expressed that a full standards process would slow things down too much. This led to the suggestion that a MIME type could be defined in a BCP with clear public review rather than a standards track document. The IESG could make sure this happens before IANA registers it.
The conclusion of the discussion was to ask the IESG, through Alison Mankin, to find a registration process for MIME types that is as open as, but not as heavyweight as, the process for MIBs. In addition, several comments were made that the owner of a proprietary format should have the onus to register it.
5. Where is the longer-term planning for Internet development happening?
The concern is that the IAB and IESG are and have been for a while in ‘reactive’ rather than ‘proactive’ mode; there should be people thinking about the longer term issues. While a consensus could not be reached on the creation of a formal longer-term planning structure, Alison suggested that this topic be brought up at an IAB-IESG face-to-face meeting.
Second Tuesday of the month, 10:00 Eastern Time.
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available online http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.