Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 1996-12-10

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1996»IAB Minutes 1996-12-10



    Fred Baker
    Steve Bellovin
    Brian Carpenter
    Jon Crowcroft
    Robert Elz
    Elise Gerich
    Erik Huizer
    John Klensin
    Allison Mankin
    Robert Moskowitz
    Radia Perlman
    Jon Postel
    Yakov Rekhter
    Chris Weider
    Abel Weinrib

    Allyn Romanow
    Frank Kastenholz


    Teleconference Tuesday January 14, 10-12 Eastern Time.



    • Jon Crowcroft: Review IPPM, int-serv mechanisms, routing arbiter, etc. from the perspective of providing end-to-end quality service across multiple providers.
    • Radia Perlman: Send first draft of “what should be in a protocol” document to mailing list.
    • Fred Baker: Arrange with Steve Coya to send BOF charters to the iab list in advance of IETF meetings.


    • Chris Weider: “Assigned numbers should be available from an online dictionary”–figure out what to do.
    • Brian Carpenter: Get relevant ISO standards documents (e.g., 10646) available to the IETF community online.
    • Brian Carpenter: Get Bob Hinden (or someone else) to produce a document articulating the technical value of IPv6 beyond large addresses.


    1. Year 2000 (Erik).

      Negative press in Holland implying that the millennia problem would bring down the Internet…

      Erik suggests that we proactively document the problems and lack of problems we expect in an informational RFC. Will hold a BOF on this topic at the Memphis meeting.

    2. Larger model embracing int-serv/rsvp/issll/qosr/mmusic/avt (Jon Crowcroft).

      Jon presented some preliminary ideas on how to encourage Internet service providers to work together to provide good end-to-end service to their customers. Currently, we have something of a “tragedy of the commons,” where there is little incentive for ISPs to ensure that the entire Internet provides adequate service, and the situation is getting worse.

      To help alleviate these problems, one could establish that buying Internet service from a supplier has an implied reservation of some sort for your traffic to part or all of the Internet. If the provider does not give you the agreed upon service, you should get your money back. To enable such an approach, tools are needed that would allow end-users to measure what service they are getting (e.g., from IPPM working group). Such measurements would be used by end-users to negotiate service level agreements with their ISP; the agreements would provide financial incentives for the ISPs to work together to guarantee end-to-end service. The ISPs would provide the required service level not by implementing per-stream guarantees, but rather by negotiating aggregate service levels among themselves.

      This approach is similar to thinking about providing QOS in a scalable way even within a single ISP’s domain. Customers could use RSVP at the edges of the network to signal to edge routers that a stream requires special treatment, and then the ISP could use tunnels, priorities or other techniques within the network to give appropriate service to the aggregated streams.

      It was observed that we are already seeing bilateral connections between the larger providers, thus providing better service quality to their mutual customers, but leaving out smaller providers that have to connect through the (congested) public interconnect points.

    3. What it is good to include in a protocol spec. (Radia)

      Radia presented an initial list to the group, which led into a brainstorming discussion. She will send a first-pass document to the IAB mailing list.

      Goal is a draft document before, and a presentation at, the Memphis IETF.

    4. IAB oversight of BOFs. (Erik)

      BOFs are an important forum for new work being brought to the IETF. It was generally agreed that the IAB ought to get more involved in participating in and guiding BOFs. The IESG is already requiring more detailed charters for BOFs–these will be sent to the IAB so that we can get a heads up on them. Then, we will work to explicitly assign IAB members to cover the BOFs from an architectural perspective.

    5. How to handle policy discussions

        subtext: how to avoid the IAB spending time on policy rather than architecture.

      After discussion it was agreed that draft IANA documents, or IANA-related issues requiring the development of such documents, would in future be reviewed by the IAB, with invited participation of relevant area directors.

      Four possible outcomes:

      1. Submission published as IANA document.
      2. Publish as an ID with a last call, then publish.
      3. IAB negotiates with the IESG to form a working group in the IETF to study the submission in more detail.
      4. Reject.

      For more general policy issues on which the IAB needs to advise the ISOC, the IAB could create a standing subcommittee of the IAB including IAB and non-IAB members to consider policy issues; alternatively, the IAB could form a subcommittee for each policy question as it arises. The second alternative was preferred.

      The IAB agreed that all of these procedures fall within its charter under RFC 1601.

Future Meetings

    Regular teleconference second Tuesday of the month at 10:00 AM Eastern Time.

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, An online copy of these and other minutes are available at Also, visit the IAB Web page at