CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Jim Showalter/DCA OSINSAP Minutes The meeting was chaired by Richard Colella (NIST). Agenda o Recording of Minutes o Status of the NSAP RFC o Status of the NSAP Guidelines Paper o Proposed NSAP Administration Paper o Address Transition Issues Status of the NSAP RFC Ross Callon (OSI Area Co-director/DEC) gave a brief status of the NSAP RFC. The RFC, which supersedes RFC 1069, is a recommended structure for OSI NSAPs for use in the Internet. At present it is an Internet Draft out for comment. Ross proposed that the group recommend to the IESG that the draft be progressed as an RFC. Although unrelated to the actual status report the door was opened for discussion of whether other addresses could be used and still be GOSIP V.2 compliant. The answer was yes. Essentially, GOSIP does not preclude any NSAP structure. If IS-IS is to be used efficiently, however, the NSAP must carry a 6 octet System ID field and a 1 octet network selector field in the last 7 octets of the DSP. There was also some discussion on who or what organization has responsibility for assigning addresses. This was prompted by the fact that the NSAP RFC simply points to GOSIP V.2 for NSAP format structure rather than specifying the structure in the RFC. The reason is that the Internet (thus far) is recommending use of the GOSIP format. If the format should change, then the RFC will not have to be republished. In the unlikely event that the GOSIP format should change to such a degree that the Internet experts are uncomfortable with it then the NSAP RFC could be modified to reflect the required format rather than point to GOSIP. Following the discussion a vote was taken on whether or not to recommend to the IESG to advance the NSAP Internet Draft to RFC status. The vote was 17 for and 0 against. NSAP Guidelines Status Not much was done since the last meeting. After some discussion it was agreed by consensus that the NSAP Guidelines paper would be updated. All editors' comments would be resolved and the paper would be mailed out for review by the end of August. A Working Group meeting is 1 tentatively planned to be held at INTEROP in October to review the document prior to the December IETF meeting. NSAP Administration Proposal Richard noted that, under current GSA guidelines for administration of GOSIP NSAPs, GSA will entertain proposals from any organization wishing to be assigned AA values under ICD 0005. He recommended that the Working Group develop such a proposal, which would be the administrative counterpart to the NSAP Guidelines paper. The proposal would request one or more AA values from GSA and elaborate on how these would be administered. An organization that is willing to provide the administrative support should be identified to submit the proposal to GSA. NSF was suggested as a possible candidate, and there may be others. Sue Hares (Merit) volunteered to begin drafting the administration document. If you would like to contribute she can be reached at skh@merit.edu. 4. Address Transition This subject had arisen on the Working Group mailing list and Richard wanted to ensure that there was no disagreement before updating the Guidelines paper. Subsequent to the explanation of the issue, which is detailed below, there was no significant discussion and no disagreement. Address transition has to do with the interaction between hierarchical address assignment and the way IS-IS routers handle areas that move from one routing domain to another. For example, assume an area, represented by the area address ABC (i.e., a prefix), moves to another routing domain and retains its area address. If the area address is allocated from the (shorter) prefix of the original routing domain, AB (i.e., hierarchical address assignment), two problems are created. First, in the source routing domain, the ISs must advertise externally to other routing domains that they can reach all addresses that start with AB *except* the addresses that start with ABC (i.e., the recently-moved area). Second, in the destination routing domain, the ISs must advertise externally to other routing domains that they can reach all those addresses that they could reach before, e.g., those that begin with prefix XY, but *also* the area address of the newly-acquired area, ABC. If there is no address reclamation, over time this will lead to ``address entropy'', or flat addressing. Any gains in address collapse from originally allocating addresses hierarchically will eventually disappear. It is, therefore, necessary that the area eventually relinquish its old area address to the original routing domain. Attendees Nick Alfano nick@gandalf.ca 2 Colin Amor uunet!rti.rti.org!bnrunix!cja Ross Callon callon@bigfut.enet.dec.com C. Allan Cargille cargille@cs.wisc.edu Richard Colella colella@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov Curtis Cox zk0001@nhis.navy.mil Nick Di Iorio nicola@napoli.att.com Dennis Ferguson dennis@gw.ccie.utoronto.ca Ella Gardner epg@gateway.mitre.org Michael Grobe grobe@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Robert Hagens hagens@cs.wisc.edu Susan Hares skh@merit.edu Ken Jones uunet!konkord!ksj Paulina Knibbe knibbe@cisco.com Jim Knowles jknowles@trident.arc.nasa.gov Chuck Martin David Miller dtm@ulana.mitre.org Cyndi Mills cmills@bbn.com Douglas Montgomery dougm@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov Mark Needleman mhn@stubbs.ucop.edu Rebecca Nitzan nitzan@nsipo.nasa.gov Yakov Rekhter yakov@ibm.com Jim Sheridan jsherida@ibm.com Jim Showalter gamma@mintaka.dca.mil Keith Sklower sklower@okeeffe.berkeley.edu Erik Skovgaard eskovgaa@uvcw.uvic.ca Zaw-Sing Su zsu@tsca.istc.sri.com Justin Walker justin@apple.com Linda Winkler b32357@anlvm.ctd.anl.gov Jean Wu eskovgaa@uvcw.uvic.ca 3