Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) Report from the IESG Teleconference 12 August 1993 Recorded by: John Stewart, 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. iesg-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us. ATTENDEES --------- Bradner, Scott / Harvard Chapin, Lyman / BBN Coya, Steve / CNRI Crocker, Dave / SGI Crocker, Steve / TIS Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Klensin, John / UNU Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Mankin, Allison / NRL Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Rose, Marshall / DBC Stewart, John / CNRI IAB Liaison Christian Huitema / INRIA Yakov Rekhter / IBM Regrets Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Minutes ------- 1. Administrative Issues o Roll call o Revisions to the agenda The first hour was spent on the Protocol Actions, RFC Editor Actions, and Waiting for Area Director Action sections. The next hour will be spent on the Management Issues section, including the IPng decision process. o Erik Huizer will be on vacation from 15 August to 15 September 2. Protocol Actions o The IESG approved moving "Interactive Mail Access Protocol, Version 3" to Historic. o The IESG approved moving "The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control Protocol (IPXCP)" to Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved moving the Dynamic Host Configuration documents () to Proposed Standard. o The IESG approved moving "FDDI Management Information Base" to Proposed Standard. 5. Management Issues o IPng The standard operating procedure in the IETF is for working groups to be managed primarily by the areas, with the IESG giving final approval for submissions to the standards track. Traditionally, areas and their directors have been created and torn down at the IESG's convenience, and this is a strength. It was decided that all of the IPng work should be aggregated. The Chair was asked to formulate a plan. ACTION (Gross): As IETF/IESG Chair, write up a proposal for the IPng decision process and send it to the IESG mailing list by the morning of 16 August. o Time-stamping ACTION items ACTION items on the IESG Agendas will now have reasonable deadlines associated with them. o IESG view on new document series for non-standards Allison Mankin suggested that the Internet do what the ATM Forum does and publish a book containing its standards. There was mixed reaction within the IESG, but several people said that it would be nice to have the RFCs handy without having to have access to a workstation and a network. ACTION (Mankin): Send a message to the ISOC Trustees by close of business on Friday 13 August asking for their reaction to ISOC publishing a book of its standards. o Prototype status There was a question as to whether Prototype was necessary or not. Its proponents claim that (1) it is a necessary stage for protocols which appear to be complete, but have not been tested well enough to enter the standards track, and (2) the connotations of the word "Prototype" might encourage vendors to implement and test protocols more so than protocols with a status of Experimental. In the past, the IAB used Prototype when a working group wanted a document to be a Proposed Standard, but the IAB didn't think the protocol was ready for the standards track. ACTION (D. Crocker): Send a message to the IESG proposing wording to define Prototype status. o IESG Policy on OSI-related work, and IESG response to OSIXTND The IESG decided that the IESG/IETF Chair IETF should announce the policy that the IESG agreed to, and that the Chair needs to be aware of the possibility that some people might incorrectly interpret this statement as coupling IPng and the liaison. ACTION (Gross): As IESG/IETF Chair, send a draft of the announcement for the IESG Policy on OSI-related Work to the IESG mailing list by 20 August. 6. RFC Editor Actions o "Automating Administration in SNMPv2 Managers" as Informational The IESG had no objections to publishing this document as an Informational RFC. 7. Waiting for Area Director Action o "DNS Resolver MIB" and "DNS Server MIB" to Proposed Marshall Rose reported that the Network Management Area Directorate has seen these documents three times, and is requesting more changes. ACTION (Rose, D. Crocker): Take the discussion off-line and try to fix the details.