Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences

    IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG)

    REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING

    November 20th, 1992

    Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary

    This report contains IESG meeting notes, positions and action items.

    These minutes were compiled by the IETF Secretariat which is supported
    by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NCR 8820945.

    For more information please contact the IESG Secretary.

    ATTENDEES
    ---------

    Almquist, Philip / Consultant
    Borman, David / Cray Research
    Crocker, Dave / TBO
    Crocker, Steve / TIS
    Coya, Steve / CNRI
    Gross, Philip / ANS
    Hinden, Robert / SUN
    Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS
    Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
    Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
    Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
    Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore
    Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet
    Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI

    Regrets
    Davin, Chuck / Bellcore

    IAB ATTENDEES

    Braden, Robert / ISI
    Cerf, Vinton / CNRI
    Chapin, Lyman / BBN
    Huitema, Christian / INRIA
    Kent/ Stephen / BBN
    Lauch, Anthony / DEC
    Leiner, Barry / NASA
    Postel, Jon / ISI

    Regrets
    Braun, Hans-Werner / SDSC
    Lynch, Daniel / Interop

    AGENDA
    ------

    1) Protocol Actions

    o Telnet Environment Option
    o Telnet Authentication Options
    - SPX
    - Kerberos V4
    o String Representation of Distinguished Names
    o Network Time Protocol
    o Common OSI Management in the Internet (CMOT)

    2) IETF Progress Report

    3) IETF Re-organization

    4) New IP Review

    MINUTES
    -------

    1) Protocol Actions

    The IESG reviewed the following protocol actions under the new and
    evolving standards process continuing in the POSISED Working Group.

    o Telnet Environment Option

    The IESG reviewed the Telnet Environment option and approved it for
    Proposed Standard. This option was previously sent to the IAB and
    was sent back to Working Group for revision. The Working Group has
    specified an initial set of Operating System independent variables
    and provided a mechanism for session specific variables.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send an IESG approval for the Telnet
    Authentication Option to the RFC Editor and the IETF.

    o Telnet Authentication Protocols
    - Telnet Authentication
    - SPX
    - Kerberos V4

    The Telnet Working Group has several documents for telnet
    Authentication. These documents are complete but are expected to be
    obsolete shortly by a more comprehensive set of
    authentication/encryption documents. The Working Group requested
    Experimental status for the current set. In the absence of a
    Prototype designation, the IESG agreed and approved the documents
    for Experimental status.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Request that the RFC Editor publish the Telnet
    Authentication documents as Experimental Protocols.

    o String Representation of Distinguished Names

    The IESG approved the string representation of distinguished names
    document as a Proposed Standard. This document along with the User
    Friendly Naming document earlier approved as experimental by the
    IESG was previously submitted to the IAB as a Proposed Standard.
    This document is narrower in scope and represents one of
    several possible human-readable representations suitable for email
    or business card exchange. Additional comments were received by
    Steve Kent but the IESG left the decision on whether to incorporate
    these changes to the current version or the Draft Standard version
    up to the author.

    ACTION: After the author either makes additional edits or indicates
    that current document is complete, send an IESG Approval for the String
    Representation of Distinguished Name document to the RFC Editor and the
    IETF.

    o Network Time Protocol

    After significant discussion, the IESG concluded that there was
    inadequate information to elevate the Network Time Protocol to Draft
    Standard. While there are two implementations for differing
    platforms, it is not clear that it is possible to implement an
    independent interoperable implementation from RFC1113. NTP has not
    been subject to a Working Group review but was reviewed by an
    independent group of IETF experts before going to Proposed
    Standard. The IESG will consult again with this group and if
    necessary form a Working Group.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Consult with the original panel of reviewers of the
    NTP specification and determine if there is adequate experience to
    elevate NTP to Draft Standard.

    o Common OSI Management in the Internet (CMOT)

    The CMOT protocol has been a Proposed Standard for two years and
    there is no indication that there is, or will be in the near term,
    the necessary level of implementation or experience to elevate
    the protocol to Draft Standard. The IESG approved moving CMOT off
    the standards track to Historic.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the IETF that the IESG has moved CMOT off
    the standards track.

    2) IETF Progress Report

    Several protocols which were in need of revision or were long
    expected to be submitted to the IESG were completed at the
    Washington IETF Meeting.

    o SMTP Extensions

    The impasse on the documentation style and all technical issues were
    resolved. New documents should be submitted to the Internet Drafts
    and IESG shortly.

    o IDENT

    The IDENT specification with character set changes recommended by
    the IESG was reviewed and accepted by the Working Group.

    o Dynamic Host Configuration

    The specifications for the protocol and options were reviewed and
    accepted by the Working Group.

    o Privacy Enhanced Mail

    PEM is now finished and will be submitted to the IESG within a
    week. Integration with MIME has begun and this work is intended to
    progress independently.

    3) IETF Re-Organization

    The IESG discussed specific points of the POISED proposal for
    re-organization of the IETF/IESG/IAB relationship.

    o IESG Selection.

    The proposal for selection of IESG members was a discussed. Two
    specific concerns were raised, attention to the cooperative spirit of
    the IESG in selection new members and continuity in the technical
    management. The IESG affirmed the proposals for the nomination
    committee to seek guidance from the IESG in selecting new members.
    Further, the IESG decided that IESG positions should be put up for
    re-affirmation, not individual members. This is especially
    important in large area with co-area directors. It was felt that
    only one of the Directors should be put up for re-affirmation at a
    time.

    The IESG periodically reviews its operations and re-organizes areas
    to reflect new priorities and workloads. The integration of OSI
    Working Groups into other IESG Areas is one such re-organization.
    It was agreed that the IESG should remain free to pursue such
    re-organization with the understanding that any new IESG positions
    will be subject to the normal nomination process.

    Five of the six members needed to be re-affirmed volunteered, Dave
    Piscitello, Dave Crocker, Dave Borman, Stev Knowles, and Phill
    Gross.

    o IESG Workload

    The IESG and IAB agreed to begin operating under the current
    proposal for IESG final approval of standards. This will entail a
    greater workload on the IESG with no immediate increase in either
    IESG membership or secretariat support. The formation of
    directorates, bodies of experts in a specific area who can aid the
    Area Director in the review of protocols and mentoring of Working
    Groups are now more critical. IESG meetings will need to become
    more focused on protocol standardization and in-depth review of
    architectural issues. The IESG discussed off-loading the IETF
    chairman by assigning responsibility for meeting planning, and the
    technical presentation program to the Executive Director. To
    accomplish this, the IESG discussed the creation of a "facilitator"
    a non-technical participant who can manage the agenda and steer the
    group toward consensus. Steve Coya as the Executive Director of the
    IETF was named as the obvious
    choice.

    o Process Changes

    The Poised proposal will result in many changes. Several of these
    were accepted by the IESG and IAB for immediate implementation.

    - The IESG will now make decisions on standards track protocols
    starting immediately. Protocols on the IAB's plate will continue
    through the previous process.

    - RFC 1310 will be updated. Steve Coya was assigned the task of
    serving as editor for the IESG update of this document.

    ACTION: Coya, Dcrocker -- Revise RFC 1310 to reflect the changes in the
    IESG/IAB structure. It is hoped that a solid cut can be made by the
    December 10th ISOC Trustees meeting.

    - The IESG, i.e., Steve Coya, now has responsibility for reporting
    standardization progress in the Internet Monthly Report and the
    Internet Society News.

    - Area Directors need explicit guidelines for Working Group Chairman
    and Area Directorates. A revised Working Group guidelines incorporating
    the information from Erik Huizer's OSI area guidelines will be produced.

    ACTION: Huizer -- Revise the Guidelines to Working Group chairman to
    offer more explicit guidance and to define the role of the IESG Area
    Director in terms of Working Group management.

    - The IESG needs to write a new charter for itself under the IAB.
    The IAB needs to revise its charter to reflect new duties.

    o Outstanding Concerns

    With the IAB, the IESG took an round-robin survey to identify the
    outstanding areas of concern with the Poised proposal. The
    following concerns were identified.

    The professionalism of the IAB/IESG is valuable and must be
    protected. The nominating committed must be able to work in
    confidence in considering personnel. Fear of recall petitions may
    make members reluctant to tackle hard problems.

    IESG members serve as technical members but are responsible for
    management of the IETF work and need to be selected with an eye to
    both roles.

    The IESG relies upon a close collegial relationship for coordinating
    technical work and the nominating committee needs the input of
    existing members to determine if new members can work within the
    IESG. Further, the replacement of 1/2 of the IESG per vote must be
    structured in such a way that the area continuity can be maintained,
    likely by placing only one of co-area directors up for re-nomination
    per period.

    IESG workload will increase. In the short term progress is likely
    to get slower, not faster.

    The role of the IAB as appeals board needs to be better defined. The
    process framework needs to be legally defensible but not be
    over-defined to the point of OSI-fication.

    4) New IP Review

    At this IETF meeting the several proposals for the next IP were
    presented and discussed. The field of choices appears to have
    narrowed by attrition to two, CLNP and SIP/IPAE. There were many
    viewpoints explored on the wisdom of choosing a single choice with
    the a general consensus that it is better for the IESG/IAB to lead
    towards a choice by specifying increasingly higher hurdles and
    setting firm criteria for the proposals than to pick a single
    protocol.

    This view towards community decision making results from an
    understanding that any meaningful decision by the IAB/IESG would
    have to be made early, before a substantial investment in
    implementation, and hence before firm experience is gathered.
    Experience and the pressure of competition will result in stronger
    proposals which reflect implementation and transition experience.
    Strong dissenters from this view charge that the costs of parallel
    tracks are too great and that a decision, even if it is not the best
    of the contenders will better conserve resources for faster
    deployment.

    The IESG discussed and came to the conclusion that a decision can be
    made, but only if there is community consensus that a decision needs
    to be made.

    ACTION: Knowles, Almquist -- Write a draft statement to be sent to the
    IETF mailing list inquiring about the desire to make a decision on the
    next IP.

    Appendix -- Action Items

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Send an IESG approval for the Telnet
    Authentication Option to the RFC Editor and the IETF.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Request that the RFC Editor publish the Telnet
    Authentication documents as Experimental Protocols.

    ACTION: After the author either makes additional edits or indicates
    that current document is complete, send an IESG Approval for the String
    Representation of Distinguished Name document to the RFC Editor and the
    IETF.

    ACTION: Hobby -- Consult with the original panel of reviewers of the
    NTP specification and determine if there is adequate experience to
    elevate NTP to Draft Standard.

    ACTION: Vaudreuil -- Notify the IETF that the IESG has moved CMOT off
    the standards track.

    ACTION: Coya, Dcrocker -- Revise RFC 1310 to reflect the changes in the
    IESG/IAB structure. It is hoped that a solid cut can be made by the
    December 10th ISOC Trustees meeting.

    ACTION: Knowles, Almquist -- Write a draft statement to be sent to the
    IETF mailing list inquiring about the desire to make a decision on the
    next IP.

    ACTION: Huizer -- Revise the Guidelines to Working Group chairman to
    offer more explicit guidance and to define the role of the IESG Area
    Director in terms of Working Group management.