home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
iesg
/
iesg.95-02-23
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-03-10
|
4KB
|
122 lines
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
February 23, 1995
Reported by: Steve Coya, IETF Executive Director
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 at
<iesg-secretary@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us>.
ATTENDEES
---------
Bradner, Scott / Harvard
Coya, Steve / CNRI
Halpern, Joel / Newbridge Networks
Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison)
Huizer, Erik / SURFnet
Klensin, John / MCI
Mockapetris, Paul / ISI
O'Dell, Mike / UUNET
Reynolds, Joyce / ISI
Rose, Marshall / DBC
Schiller, Jeff / MIT
Topolcic, Claudio / BBN
Regrets
-------
Knowles, Stev / FTP Software
Mankin, Allison / ISI
Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison)
MINUTES
-------
1. The IESG approved the minutes from the February 9 teleconference.
Coya to place copy in IETF Shadow directories.
2. The IESG decided to hold a meeting of the IESG and WG Chairs on
Monday morning (8-9AM) in Danvers.
Steve reported that an IESG Morning room will be available Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday mornings. There will be no morning room on
Friday, though a room will be reserved for the IESG and IAB
(current and new) to meet jointly that day.
3. There will be a Poised meeting Monday morning in Danvers. Marshall
Rose will chair the meeting. Primary objective is to define the new
charter as well as new milestones.
4. The IESG approved the publication of MIME Encapsulation of EDI
Objects <draft-ietf-edi-mime-02.txt, .ps> as a Proposed Standard.
5. The IESG approved the publication of
TFTP Option Extension
<draft-ietf-tftpexts-option-ext-02.txt>
TFTP Blocksize Option
<draft-ietf-tftpexts-blksize-opt-01.txt>
TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options
<draft-ietf-tftpexts-options-00.txt>
TFTP Option Negotiation Analysis - Informational
<draft-ietf-tftpexts-analysis-00.txt>
with the understanding that new versions of the I-Ds are made
available. These revisions include editorial changes requested by
IESG members.
The announcement will not be sent until the new versions are
publically available.
6. The IESG approved the publication of "The PPP Banyan Vines Control
Protocol (BVCP)" <draft-ietf-pppext-vines-02.txt> as a Proposed
Standard.
7. The IESG approved the publication of "The PPP XNS IDP Control
Protocol (XNSCP)" <draft-ietf-pppext-xnscp-00.txt> as a Proposed
Standard.
8. The IESG approved the publication of "The PPP DECnet Phase IV
Control Protocol (DNCP)" <draft-ietf-pppext-dncp-00.txt> as a Draft
Standard.
9. The IESG approved the publication of "Tags for the identification of
languages" <draft-ietf-mailext-lang-tag-02.txt> as a Proposed
Standard.
10. The IESG had no problems with the publication of "OSPF Database
Overflow" <draft-ietf-ospf-overflow-01.txt> as an Experimental
Protocol.
11. The IESG approved the re-chartering of the RIPv2 Working Group as
RIP with the following revised milestones:
May 95 Submit RIPng Internet-Draft for consideration as a
Proposed Standard. MUST be accompanied by a suitably
restrictive Applicability Statement.
Jul 95 Meet at Stockholm IETF. Review status of MD5 for elevation to
Draft. Review status of RIP-2 and MIB for elevation to
Standard. A suitably restrictive Applicability Statement
for RIPv2 MUST accompany the request for elevation.
12. The IESG approved the creation of the DLSw MIB Working Group.
13. The IESG discussed the proposal to send a note to the IETF
community requesting the community to grant a one-time expemption
from the procedures documented in RFC1602 so that the documents
from the ONCRPC Working Group could be moved onto the standards
track, would would result in a "social contract" with Sun and the
IETF.
The consensus of the IESG was that the concept of a social contract
served no real useful purpose, and that it would be difficult to
enter into an agreement with one organization while not providing
the same terms and conditions to others. As such, the proposal was
rejected.