MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20, 1998 IAB TELECONFERENCE
Teleconference Tuesday February 10, 10-12 Eastern Time.
- Steve Deering: Send current agenda and invitee list for the IAB Routing Workshop.
- Abel Weinrib: Make sure there is at least one plenary presentation at next IETF from an IRTF group
- Abel Weinrib: Suggest to IESG that they add chairs of relevant IRTF groups to the appropriate area directorates
- Tony Hain: Put together a crisp problem statement for the NAT/VPN/IPv6 problem.
- Steve Bellovin: Review SASL draft.
- Steve Deering, Radia Perlman, Cyndi Jung: Plan Routing & Addressing workshop with Joel Halpern and Sue Hares.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
DRAFTS IN PROGRESS:
- Brian Carpenter and Erik Huizer: IAB charter (updated RFC 1601).
- Radia Perlman: What should be in protocols.
- Steve Bellovin: Security workshop report.
- Abel Weinrib: Make sure there is at least one plenary presentation at next IETF from an IRTF group.–remains open.
- Abel Weinrib: Suggest to IESG that they add chairs of relevant IRTF groups to the appropriate area directorates.–remains open.
- Tony Hain: Put together a crisp problem statement for the NAT/VPN/IPv6 problem.–remains open.
- John Klensin: Get CORE shared registry technology explained in Washington IETF.–OBE.
- Steve Bellovin: Review SASL draft.–remains open.
- Erik Huizer: Investigate whether the IAB should sponsor work on an Internet Network Management Architecture.–focus now on IRTF research group.
- Steve Deering, Radia Perlman, Cyndi Jung: Plan Routing & Addressing workshop with Joel Halpern and Sue Hares.–on track. Logistics remain open.
- Tony Hain, Charles Perkins (will coauthor): Get Bob Hinden and Bob Fink to produce a document articulating the technical value of IPv6 beyond large addresses.–combine with NAT issues Action Item. Bob Fink has a new version available.
- Brian Carpenter and Erik Huizer: IAB charter (updated RFC 1601).–remains open.
- Radia Perlman: What should be in protocols.–out as IETF draft.
- Steve Bellovin: Security workshop report.–out as IETF draft.
1. review old actions
2. review drafts in progress
Next conference call Feb. 10.
4. IRTF news
Routing Research Group–approved.
Network Management Group–still very Bell Labs and IBM Research focused. Not very broad representation. Some feeling that we should encourage broader participation.
5. IESG liaison report
6. Open Group liaison
The Open Group is offering the IETF a “seat” for liaison. Main issue to be resolved is the confidentiality of Open Group process–the IETF liaison needs to be able to share with the IETF information he or she receives.
7. IANA future
Proposal on the table for an independent, not-for-profit organization to fulfill the role of the IANA, with open governance and a role for the IAB. The board would be elected by other independent organizations (e.g., RIPE, ISOC) representing various constituencies. Biggest problem is that there is no obvious organization that represents the domain name side of things. The POC is not broadly accepted in this role.
The proposal is that IAB would represent the protocol constituency (IETF). It was pointed out that the IAB has a somewhat broader focus beyond protocols, including architecture and technical implications.
RFC Editor position is separated out from this proposal. The assumption is that ISOC would find the funding for the Editor as part of its support of the IETF standards setting process.
8. Continue NAT/IPv6 discussion
The big issue is the suggestion that NATs be promoted to be part of routing system. The question is whether to ignore NATs, or try to make them work as well as possible. Whether we like it or not, NATs are being deployed, and by those with deep enough pockets that solutions will be produced by vendors. This whole topic is complex and deserves to be discussed to a greater depth.
Should we have a second workshop on this topic, or modify the routing workshop agenda? Consensus: discuss this in routing workshop, but recognize that we won’t come to closure in this workshop. Let the results of the discussion decide whether or not to hold a workshop focused on this topic.
LDAP vs. SRVLOC vs. WHOIS
Should the IAB step in to resolve overlap and confusion on what to use? The industry appears to have settled on LDAP as the answer, whatever is the question.
General feeling is that the IAB probably does not have the attention, or the focus of expertise, for this. An Apps Area workshop may be more appropriate.
Regular teleconference second Tuesday of the month at 10:00 AM Eastern Time.
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, email@example.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available at http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins. Also, visit the IAB Web page at http://www.iab.org/iab.