IETF STEERING GROUP (IESG) REPORT FROM THE IETF MEETING December 14th, 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 --------- Borman, David / Cray Research Coya, Steve / CNRI Crocker, Dave / TBO Gross, Philip / ANS Hinden, Robert / SUN Hobby, Russ / UC-DAVIS Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore Stockman, Bernard / SUNET/NORDUnet Vaudreuil, Greg / CNRI Chapin, Lyman / BBN Regrets Almquist, Philip / Consultant Crocker, Steve / TIS Davin, Chuck / Bellcore Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Agenda ------ This teleconference was called to discuss the current IESG plans for progressing the various proposals for the next IP. MINUTES ------- The IESG began with a review of the current state. The IP criteria document edited by Craig Partridge and Frank Kastenholtz, expected to be completed by December 15th, is not likely to result in specific decision criteria. The document is expected to be a listing of issues to be considered. The IESG had committed to reviewing the various proposals against the criteria by December 15th. The IESG affirmed its position that the choice of the next IP will be made as nearly as possible follow the standard IETF standardization process of document, implement, and test. To facilitate this work, and given the current time constraints, the IESG agreed to review the initial specifications for the proposals and release a list of comments for each proposal as soon as possible. All the proposals lack adequate implementation experience. The IESG has requested and affirmed the requirement that by February 15th, multiple interoperable implementations be made available for public review. This requirement goes beyond that necessary for Proposed Standard and is intended to form the basis for comparison of the various proposals. o "P" Internet Protocol/ Extended IP (PIP/EIP) The IESG discussed PIP and observed that the proposal may face difficulties in completing the specification, implementation and deployment within the timeframe expected from the CIDR short term solution. The IESG also observed that PIP appears to have limited constituency and will need to demonstrate wider acceptance in the near term to be considered a serious contender. o TCP/UDP over Bigger Addresses (TUBA) The IESG observed that the lack of a well documented deployment and transition plan was a shortcoming of the current TUBA work. It is not clear from the current proposals when the various portions of the Internet will be required to support TUBA and what services will be available to hosts which do not support TUBA. o Simple IP/ IP Address Encapsulation (SIP/IPAE) There is currently no provision for the management of SIP. MIBs for the management of SIP and the IPAE transition are needed. The IESG discussed the necessity for unique endpoint identifiers, and while there was some difficulty reaching a precise definitions, the IESG, reached agreement that they were essential for the next IP. The definition used for the purposes of this agreement was "A globally unique identifier as understood in same sense as IPv4 usage of a host address" ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Write up the comments agreed to this meeting and circulate them to the IESG and the relevant Working Groups. Appendix - Summary of Action Items ACTION: Coya, Gross -- Write up the comments agreed to this meeting and circulate them to the IESG and the relevant Working Groups.