INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) December 2, 1993 Reported by: Steve Coya, Acting 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 Huitema, Christian / INRIA (IAB Liaison) Huizer, Erik / SURFnet Klensin, John / UNU Knowles, Stev / FTP Software Mankin, Allison / NRL Rekhter, Yakov / IBM (IAB Liaison) Rose, Marshall / DBC Regrets Reynolds, Joyce / ISI Piscitello, Dave/ Bellcore 1. The minutes of the November 18 teleconference were approved. They will be placed onto the IESG directory at the shadow sites. 2. Following some discussion, the generic structure of IESG teleconferences is to change slightly when there is a specific suggestion for a topic that should be discussed at length . Attempts will be made to focus on normal IESG business during the first hour of the teleconference. The final hour is to be used for in-depth discussions of a single topic. Should discussion be completed in less than an hour, consensus will determine whether another major topic will be discussed or the meeting adjourned early. 3. The IESG approved DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions as a Draft Standard. Coya to send announcement to the IETF and RFC Editor. 4. The IESG discussed the recent exchange of e-mail pertaining to the X3S3 "heads up" message. It was felt that some clarifications might be needed, specifically pointing out that X3S3 scheduling their meetings to coincide with IETF meetings was being interpreted as co-meeting with the IETF. The IESG is not opposed to other groups co-locating their meetings with the IETF, as long as the IETF and the Secretariat are not affected negatively. Lyman was requested to send a clarification message to the IETF, IESG, IAB, and X3S3. 5. Allison presented an overview of two new proposed WGs in the Transport Services Area: RSVP and Integrated Services. The Integrated Services charter is still be worked on, and potential chairs are being considered. To provide more time for review and comment from both the IESG and the IAB, both WGs will be considered for approval at the next IESG meeting. 6. An error in RFC1006 (ISO transport services on top of the TCP: Version: 3) has been identified. Specifically, the sentence "Based on the size of the data transfer (DT) TPDU, this permits a maximum TSDU size of 65524 octets" is incorrect - the usual OSI Transport segmentation mechanism applies and there is no limit on the size of the transport *service* data unit. It was suggested that a check should be made with everyone who has implemented RFC1006, and identify those which may have chosen to enforce the limitation prior to taking steps to have the RFC republished (RFC1006 is currently an Internet Standard). Allison agreed to take this action item. Erik offered to forward Allison's query to entities that may not be on the collection of IETF lists. 7. Policy on wg formation Marshall reviewed his area's new policy on controlling the creation of working groups within the NM area, explicitly defining the steps to be met in establishing new WGs. There was some discussion as to whether this should eventually become an IESG policy, or be up to the individual Areas to adopt or not. There was also discussion on the whether these steps were to be considered requirements or guidelines, and a few modifications of the steps (draft charter required before or after BOF, etc) were discussed. The IESG generally thought it could be a good approach, and the consensus was for each of the areas to try it, or a variation of it. 8. Dave Crocker sent a revision of the WG Guidelines document to the IESG, accompanied by a list of major changes since the last version. IESG review and comment was solicited. Discussion was deferred to provide time to read the document. 9. IETF meeting sites Phill reported that he has begun working on the next group of IETF meeting sites, and informed the IESG that sponsoring Social Events was of concern to potential hosts. Following spirited discussions and clarifications, the topic was deferred until more than one data point of history could be obtained.