IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT OF THE MEETING OF March 19th, 1992 Reported by: Greg Vaudreuil, IESG Secretary This report contains - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Attendees - Meeting Notes Please contact IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil for more information. Attendees --------- Almquist, Philip / Consultant Borman, David / Cray Research Chiappa, Noel Crocker, Dave / TBO Crocker, Steve / TIS Coya, Steve / CNRI Davin, Chuck / MIT Estrada, Susan / CERFnet Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI IAB Guests ----------- Hans Werner Braun / SDSC Lyman Chapin /BBN Jon Postel / ISI Agenda 1. Planing for IETF Growth 1.1 Protocol Quality Control 1.2 Area Director Work Load 1.3 Secretariat Support 1.4 Working Group Management 2. Interaction with the Coalition for Network Information (CNI) 3. Internationalization 4. Ownership of Standards 5. Common Services 1.1 RPC 1.2 International Character Sets 6. Road Group Follow-up 1.1 Class B and C Net Number Assignment Policies 1.2 New Working Group Formation. Minutes ------- 1. Planning for IETF Growth The IETF is facing a continuing period of growth. With this growth an increase of management attention is needed to insure consistent high quality, and to avoid dropping important items. 1.1 Protocol Quality Control The number of protocols that the IETF is creating is rising rapidly. The IESG is responsible for reviewing each of these protocols and insuring that they meet a standard of quality. To better support the IESG's increasing workload, better tracking and reporting must be done by the Secretariat. ACTION: Coya -- Document the IESG standards process identifying the various states a document may be in. Incorporate this information into the IETF tracking system. Status information should be made available in IETF directories and included in the IMR. 1.2 Area Director Work Load The IESG members are volunteers. With the increase in the number of Working Groups, and the increased activity across the IETF, the work load on Area Directors is high. It is currently difficult for an Area Director to track the progress of work in his/her area. The IETF Secretariat maintains a database of current status, but there is little reporting of activities. Many members were unclear about what their responsibilities are to review work in other IETF Areas. Some felt responsible only for their area while others felt responsible for all IESG work. After discussion, the IESG agreed that the primary responsibility is for the AD's respective area, with a secondary responsibility to aid in the review of work in other areas where needed. It was noted that the IESG spends a large amount of time working on defining the process. The procedures are created on an as needed basis anytime a special case arises. It was suggested that a "procedures" retreat be called to document at once the procedures of the IESG, but no immediate plans were made. A strong first step would be to document the current understanding of the process. ACTION: Hobby, Stockman, Coya, Dave Crocker, and Huizer -- Write the current IESG Operational procedures into the IETF Handbook. 1.3 Secretariat Support The IESG discussed the tracking requirements, and agreed that reporting current status needs to be improved. The Area Directors agreed that a notification of expired goals and milestones report, and a protocol action report would be helpful. There is a sense that the IETF Secretariat is short of resources for aiding the IESG. A comprehensive examination of the secretariat operation was not possible during this meeting, however, there was a desire for a fuller understanding of the actual work done in the secretariat. ACTION: Coya -- Identify those areas where work in unable to be completed due to lack of resources. 1.4 Working Group Management One aspect of IETF growth that the IESG felt it could begin to control is the proliferation of Working Groups. Working Groups are forming at a rate much higher that their rate of conclusion. While these new Working Groups have good merit, there was a sense that there should be a higher hurdle to formation. The current hurdle to formation is already larger that it has been traditionally. The charters are now reviewed by the IESG and IAB in addition to the review of the Area Director prior to chartering. Groups interested in forming a Working Group are encouraged to hold a BOF session at the IETF Plenary sessions to demonstrate community interest in the topic. Working Group charters are only recently being written in such a manner that purpose of the group is specific, and the goals and milestones can be tracked. This has led to the creeping, ever expanding working group charter. Better management of specific groups is needed. The number of BOF's are also increasing at IETF meetings in addition to the number of Working Groups. By raising the hurdle for working group formation, the IESG has encouraged BOF sessions. Several groups have opted to meet repeatedly as BOF's rather than charter as Working Groups. The IESG is concerned by this practice and discussed, but did not adopt a specific restriction that a group may meet only once at IETF as a BOF. One aspect to the increasing number of working group sessions is the growing attendance at IETF meetings. Working Groups are increasingly spending time educating the newcomer in both the procedures and the technical content of a group. While other formal standards bodies have specific rules to deal with newcomers, the IETF has relied upon strong chairman to insure the group makes progress. The ability to control the meeting is affected by the understanding for the rules and guidelines. These are automatically being sent to all new IETF Working Group Chairmen. 2. Internationalization The IESG discussed the need for closer interaction with non-US attendees. The goal of an European meetings was greeted by all with approval. The current logistical question is one of funding. Attending European meetings are significantly more expensive for US attendees that the same meeting in the US. The IESG discussed the perceived requirement that IETF working groups meet at least once at an IETF plenary session. This is encouraged to give a working group the broadest exposure within the IETF, however, this practice, especially for OSI Integration groups tends to have the appearance of "Paying Homage to Caesar". Many (if not most) OSI experts are European, and most are unable to travel out of country. The IESG affirmed the policy that Working Groups, while encouraged to meet at IETF plenaries, are not required to do so. Erik Huizer briefed the IESG on the current reorganization of the RARE technical bodies. Rare appears to be talking on a structure roughly analogous to the IETF/IESG/IAB structure, with the analogue for IETF Areas, each for specific applications. The current Working Groups, analogous to IETF areas, are File Transfer, Directory Users Services and Support, Connection Oriented/Connectionless Interworking, VTAM and X-Windows over OSI, ATM/ High Speed Networking, and Security and Network Management. ACTION: Huizer -- Prepare a preliminary outline of a report on internationalization to serve as a starting point to help the IESG prepare such a report for the IAB on. 3. Proposal for Joint X.500 CNI Work The Coalition for Network Information has asked the IESG via Joyce Reynolds, to consider working together to develop X.500 applications and standards such as WAIS. After discussing the proposal, the IESG agreed that coordination is a good goal, but that the IETF did not have the resources to designate a specific liaison person. CNI is welcome to attend IETF meetings and participate in the relevant X.500 Working Groups. 4. Ownership of Standards The IAB and IESG have been engaged in discussions on the proper "home" for protocols in the standards process. The IESG has traditionally disbanded working groups after the publication of the Proposed Standard, leaving the responsibility for evolving the protocol to the IESG or the IETF as a whole. This practice has come under criticism in the context of protocols which originate outside the IETF and have no originating working group. Several advantages can be gained by continuing a working groups existence indefinitely, including providing a forum for implementors to exchange experiences, and to assume responsibility for the progression through the standards track. There was a sense that the act of forming an IETF working group requires significant scarce resources that may be better utilized. Recognizing that IETF review need to be proportional to community interest, it was unwilling to create a new policy that all standards must originate from an IETF working group. TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED 5. Common Services 6. ROAD Work