[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
UPDATED: Draft Agenda and Package for March 6, 2003 IESG Telechat
* DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT *
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Agenda for the March 6, 2003 IESG Teleconference
1. Administrivia
o Roll Call
o Bash the Agenda
o Approval of the Minutes
- February 20, 2003
o Review of Action Items
OUTSTANDING TASKS
IP o Allison to review draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs
and send decision to IESG.
IP o Erik to document process of how the IESG goes about asking
architectural questions of the IAB
IP o Thomas to write (or cause to be written) a draft on "how to
get to Draft".
IP o Patrik to take action on elevating RFC2279 to Standard.
IP o Thomas to contact Cablelabs to discuss formal relationship
with IAB
IP o Allison to re-evaluate state of draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls (Request).
Allison to send message to Andy.
IP o Ned to re-evaluate state of draft-tegen-smqp (Informational)
IP o Scott and Allison to confer on draft-foster-mgcp-basic-packages
and return March 6, 2003 with discussion points.
o Allison to send Secretariat message that draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls
is resolved once she receives a reply.
IP o Steve Bellovin to use channel to firewall vendors wrt
draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-nonce-04.txt
o Bert will follow up to make sure we have agreement from JORGE
wrt IANA MIB Copyright.
o Thomas will ask the WG whether they want to publish
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt as a Proposed Standard.
o Scott will write draft on how to inform the community about ID
Nits.
2. Protocol Actions
o Mobility Support in IPv6 (Proposed Standard)
<draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-21.txt>
Token: Narten, Thomas
o IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture (Proposed Standard)
<draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt>
Token: Narten, Thomas
o Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and
SDH Control (Proposed Standard)
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt>
Token: Wijnen, Bert
Note: Revision 8 expected today (28 feb) and goes onto IESG agenda.
Responsible: Bert
o Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers (BCP)
<draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-13.txt>
Token: Mankin, Allison
Note: A compendium of suggestions if someone is building a new
link layer or considering interactions of link layers and
Transport. Much effort was made to get WG consensus on everything
while not making it a committee draft.
3. Working Group Submissions
o A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bites of an IPv6
Address Block (Informational)
<draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt>
Token: Narten, Thomas
Note: WG LC issued 2003-01-16
o Advanced Sockets API for IPv6 (Informational)
<draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt>
Token: Narten, Thomas
Note: Comments sent to WG
o Service requirements for Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
Networks (Informational)
<draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt>
Token: Bradner, Scott
o A Framework for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
Networks (Informational)
<draft-ietf-ppvpn-framework-07.txt>
Token: Bradner, Scott
o Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering (Informational)
<draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt>
Token: Wijnen, Bert
Note: Submitted for IESG agenda
Responsible: Bert
4. Individual Submissions
o Draft of agreement between ISOC/IETF and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS
protocol development (Informational)
<draft-zinin-ietf-jtc1-aggr-01.txt>
Token: Zinin, Alex
5. Individual via RFC Editor
o Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
(Informational)
<draft-hoffman-i18n-terms-11.txt>
Token: Faltstrom, Patrik
o Basic MGCP Packages (Informational)
<draft-foster-mgcp-basic-packages-10.txt>
Token: Bradner, Scott
6. Proposed Working Groups
o Network File System Version 4
Token: Scott
Note: Additional text and milestones
o Reliable Multicast Transport
Token: Allison
o Problem Statement
Token: Harald
7. Working Group News we can use
8. IAB News we can use
9. Management Issues
o SubIP ADs
o draft-foster-mgcp-basic-packages
DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT *
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
February 20, 2003
Reported by: Jacqueline Hargest, IETF Assistant Director
ATTENDEES
---------
Alvestrand, Harald / Cisco
Austein, Rob / IAB Liaison
Bellovin, Steve / AT&T Labs
Bradner, Scott / Harvard
Bush, Randy / IIJ
Cotton, Michelle / ICANN
Coya, Steve / IETF
Daigle, Leslie / Verisign (IAB)
Fenner, Bill / AT&T
Freed, Ned / Innosoft
Hargest, Jacqueline / IETF
Mankin, Allison / Bell Labs, Lucent
Narten, Thomas / IBM
Nordmark, Erik / Sun
Reynolds, Joyce K. / ISI (RFC Editor)
Schiller, Jeff / MIT
Wijnen, Bert / Lucent
Zinin, Alex / Alcatel
REGRETS
-------
Faltstrom, Patrik / Cisco
Minutes
-------
1. The minutes of the February 6, 2003 teleconference were approved.
Secretariat to place in public archives.
2. The following action items were reported as DONE:
DONE o Harald to compose note for draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt.
DONE o Ned to email Secretariat about draft-new-apex-server;
Secretariat to forward to RFC Editor.
DONE o Harald to draft note regarding Zorn Formal Appeal Against IESG
decision. Secretariat to announce.
DONE o Patrik to send IESG Statement about International Domain Names
to Secretariat. Secretariat to send to ietf-anounce and place
on iesg/statements page.
DONE o Steve Bellovin to ask Matt Blaze to talk at San Francisco
plenary about privacy considerations.
DONE o Bert to evaluate ownership statements in printer MIB.
DONE o Harald to send note to Bob Braden about not adding names of
STD.
DONE o Secretariat to find and send response to Zorn appeal, add to
website.
DONE o Ned to send OPES note and ICAP IESG notes to mailing list and
WG, and to send ticket to iesg-secretary.
3. Protocol Actions TENTATIVELY APPROVED:
The IESG tentatively approved publication of 'Wrapping an HMAC key with
a Triple-DES Key or an AES Key' <draft-ietf-smime-hmac-key-wrap-01.txt>
as a Proposed Standard. Once Jeff and/or Steve resolve Thomas's
"discuss" with an RFC Editor Note, the Secretariat can announce.
4. Document Action APPROVED:
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'The Eifel Detection Algorithm
for TCP' <draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-07.txt> as an Experimental RFC.
Secretariat to send announcement.
5. The following documents are still under DISCUSSION:
o The UDP-Lite Protocol (Proposed Standard)
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-01.txt>
o Text string notation for Dial Sequences and GSTN / E.164
addresses (Proposed Standard)
<draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt>
o RTP Payload Format for ETSI ES 201 108 Distributed Speech
Recognition Encoding (Proposed Standard)
<draft-ietf-avt-dsr-05.txt>
o NOPEER community for BGP route scope control (BCP)
<draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt>
o Private Session Initiation Protocol(SIP) Proxy-to-Proxy
Extensions for Supporting DCS (Informational)
<draft-dcsgroup-sipping-proxy-proxy-02.txt>
6. Working Group Actions:
o Network File System Version 4
Note: Secretariat to send formal WG Charter Review message to
IESG, IAB, new-work, cc: WG Chairs.
o IPSEC KEYing information resource record (ipseckey)
Note: Tentatively approved pending word tweak from Rob Austein,
Steve Bellovin.
o Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service
environments (lemonade)
Note: Secretariat to post current version of charter on the web.
o PROBLEM (problem)
Note: Secretariat to send WG Review message to ietf-announce and
new-work.
o Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
Note: Approved. Secretariat to announce.
o MANET
Note: Secretariat to update charter. Once Allison and Steve
Bellovin's concerns are addressed with a note, Alex will notify
the Secretariat that it's approved. Secretariat to then send WG
Action announcement.
7. The IESG discussed if new IANA-maintained MIB modules should be
published as (part of) an RFC. The consensus is that the initial
version indeed is to be in an RFC. The version in that RFC MUST make
sure that some a statement is made that the authoritative version of
the IANA-maintained MIB module is at the IANA web pages.
8. No action was taken on the following document:
o 'Basic MGCP Packages' (Informational)
<draft-foster-mgcp-basic-packages-09.txt>
Note: Discussion on this document was deferred until the
March 6, 2003 telechat.
9. NEW Action Items:
o Bert Wijnen will send suggested wording to iesg-secretary about
"Does an IANA maintained MIB require an RFC?"
o Bert will follow up to make sure we have agreement from JORGE
wrt IANA MIB Copyright.
o Thomas will ask the WG whether they want to publish
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt as a Proposed Standard.
o Scott will write draft on how to inform the community about ID
Nits.
10. Outstanding Action Items:
IP o Allison to review draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs
and send decision to IESG.
IP o Erik to document process of how the IESG goes about asking
architectural questions of the IAB
IP o Thomas to write (or cause to be written) a draft on "how to
get to Draft".
IP o Patrik to take action on elevating RFC2279 to Standard.
IP o Thomas to contact Cablelabs to discuss formal relationship
with IAB
IP o Allison to re-evaluate state of draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls
(Request). Allison to send message to Andy.
IP o Ned to re-evaluate state of draft-tegen-smqp (Informational)
IP o Scott and Allison to confer on draft-foster-mgcp-basic-packages
and return March 6, 2003 with discussion points.
o Allison to send Secretariat message that draft-malis-sonet-ces-
mpls is resolved once she receives a reply.
IP o Steve Bellovin to use channel to firewall vendors wrt
draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-nonce-04.txt
To: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Evaluation: draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6 - Mobility Support in
IPv6 to Proposed Standard
--------
Last Call to expire on: 2003-2-6
Please return the full line with your position.
Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
Harald Alvestrand [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Steve Bellovin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Bradner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Randy Bush [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Patrik Faltstrom [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ned Freed [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Thomas Narten [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Erik Nordmark [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Jeff Schiller [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2/3 (9) Yes or No-Objection opinions needed to pass.
* Indicate reason if 'Discuss'.
^L
To: IETF-Announce:;
Dcc: *******
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>,
Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Proposed Standard
-------------
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Mobility Support in IPv6'
<draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-20.txt> as a Proposed Standard. This
document is the product of the IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile Hosts
Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Erik
Nordmark.
Technical Summary
This document specifies the Mobile IP protocol for IPv6. Mobile IP
allows a node to move around the internet, yet keep the same
address while continue to communicate transparently with other
nodes as it moves. Each mobile node is identified by its home
address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the
Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also
associated with a care-of address, which provides information about
the mobile node's current location. IPv6 packets addressed to a
mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of
address. The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a
mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then
send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at
this care-of address.
Mobile IP for IPv6 includes a route optimization mechanism that
allows communicating nodes to forward packets directly to each
other without having to relay all traffic via a Home Agent at the
mobile node's home address. Route optimization can be invoked
between arbitrary nodes without the need for some pre-existing
shared security relationship. Route optimization uses a
return-routablity procedure to verify the safety of performing
route optimization.
Working Group Summary
This document has been under very long development within the WG. It
was brought to the IESG over a year ago, but was sent back to the WG
in order to make changes to the security properties of route
optimization. That led to the development of the return-routability
mechanism.
There is strong support for moving this document forward, and there
continues to be frustration at the length of time this document has
been under development.
Protocol Quality
This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten.
To: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3 - IP Version 6
Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
--------
Last Call to expire on: 2002-1-28
Please return the full line with your position.
Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
Harald Alvestrand [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Steve Bellovin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Bradner [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Randy Bush [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ]
Patrik Faltstrom [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ned Freed [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Allison Mankin [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Thomas Narten [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Erik Nordmark [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Jeff Schiller [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2/3 (9) Yes or No-Objection opinions needed to pass.
* Indicate reason if 'Discuss'.
^L
To: IETF-Announce:;
Dcc: *******
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>,
Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to
Proposed Standard
-------------
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture' <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt> as a Proposed
Standard. This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working
Group. The IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Erik Nordmark.
Technical Summary
This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
Version 6 protocol (RFC 2460). The document includes the IPv6
addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition
of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses,
and an IPv6 node's required addresses.
Working Group Summary
This document was approved by the IESG as a Draft Standard in October,
2002. Subsequently, an appeal was filed regarding the IESG decision,
and the IAB issued a response in which it annulled the IESG approval
for Draft Standard. The IAB response included the following:
We recommend to the IESG that the current version of the I-D
draft be published as a Proposed Standard.
That is what this protocol action does.
The working group supported the recomendation to publish the current
document as a Proposed Standard.
Protocol Quality
This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten.
To: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh - Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH
Control to Proposed Standard
--------
Last Call to expire on: 2003-2-24
Please return the full line with your position.
Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
Harald Alvestrand [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Steve Bellovin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Bradner [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Randy Bush [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Patrik Faltstrom [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ned Freed [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Thomas Narten [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Erik Nordmark [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Jeff Schiller [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2/3 (9) Yes or No-Objection opinions needed to pass.
* Indicate reason if 'Discuss'.
^L
To: IETF-Announce:;
Dcc: *******
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>,
Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
Extensions for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard
-------------
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control'
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard. This
document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Scott Bradner and Bert Wijnen.
Technical Summary
This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling.
Working Group Summary
The WG has consensus on this document
Protocol Quality
This document was reviewed for the IESG by Bert Wijnen
To: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Evaluation: draft-ietf-pilc-link-design - Advice for Internet
Subnetwork Designers to BCP
--------
Last Call to expire on: 2003-3-7
Please return the full line with your position.
Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
Harald Alvestrand [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Steve Bellovin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Bradner [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Randy Bush [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Patrik Faltstrom [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ned Freed [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Allison Mankin [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Thomas Narten [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Erik Nordmark [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Jeff Schiller [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2/3 (9) Yes or No-Objection opinions needed to pass.
* Indicate reason if 'Discuss'.
^L
To: IETF-Announce:;
Dcc: *******
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>,
Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, pilc@ietf.org
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers to
BCP
-------------
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Advice for Internet
Subnetwork Designers' <draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-13.txt> as a BCP.
This document is the product of the Performance Implications of Link
Characteristics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Scott
Bradner and Allison Mankin.
Technical Summary
This document provides advice to the designers of digital
communication equipment, link-layer protocols and packet-switched
subnetworks (collectively referred to as subnetworks) who wish to
support the Internet protocols but who may be unfamiliar with the
Internet architecture and the implications of their design choices on
the performance and efficiency of the Internet.
The document includes among its topics: recommendations about maximum
transmission units and their tradeoffs for slow subnetwork types;
issues with connection-oriented subnetwork designs; recommendations
for multicast capabilities for links; recommendations for reliability,
error control, and their interactions with TCP, as the major reliable
transport protocol in the Internet; recommendations about use of
compression; recommendations about avoidance of significant packet
reordering; and recommendations that both link-level and end-to-end
security be used for their particular benefits.
This document represents a consensus of the members of the IETF
Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (PILC) working
group.
Working Group Summary
The working group strongly supported advancement of this
document.
Protocol Quality
The document was reviewed for the IESG by Mark Allman and Allison
Mankin.
Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)
-------------------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2003-02-09
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
Robert Thurlow <robert.thurlow@sun.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Transport Area Advisor:
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
To Subscribe: majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Archive: http://playground.sun.com/pub/nfsv4/nfsv4-wg-archive
Description of Working Group:
The objective of this working group is to advance the state of NFS
technology by producing specifications to extend the original NFS
Version 4 work (RFC 3010) to provide additional capabilities, as
described below.
o NFS version 4
Advance the protocol along the standards track, coordinating the
development of test suites to provide a high level of implementation
quality. The ONC RPC standards that NFSv4 references must also be
advanced. This includes work to make NFSv4 and the underlying ONC RPC
protocol compatible with IPv6. Specifically, we will advance RFC
3010, RFC 1831, RFC 1833 and RFC 2203 to Draft Standard. The working
group will help advance related security RFCs, specifically through
the definition of a method to advance APIs.
o Replication and Migration
The original working group defined a mechanism for NFS clients and
servers to support replication and migration of data transparently
to an application. Left undefined in the initial work was the
server back end migration and replication mechanism. The working
group will produce a draft submission of a replication/migration
protocol that supports NFS Version 4 clients - needed to create and
maintain replicated filesystems as well as migrating filesystems
from one location to another - and servers for consideration as
Proposed Standard.
o Management
The working group will produce a draft submission for consideration
as Proposed Standard of a management MIBs to provide better
management and administration capabilities for NFS and ONC RPC.
o Minor Versions
NFS Version 4 contains within it the capability for minor versioning.
Some discussions within the working group suggest addressing
additional requirements over the original charter. The WG will work
to identify additional requirements for NFSv4 and determine if they
are appropriate and worthwhile for a minor version. This work may
lead to proposals for additional work items. If it does a specific
proposal to add these work items to the charter will be forwarded to
the IESG and IAB.
=================================================
NEW CHARTER WORDING ADDITION:
o RDMA/RDDP enabling
The performance benefit of RDMA/RDDP transports in NFS-related
applications, by reducing the overhead of data and metadata
exchange, has been demonstrated sufficiently such that the
working group will pursue in parallel enabling NFS and RPC over
the transport defined by the RDDP working group. The WG will
restrict its initial activities to defining the problem
statement and specifying the requirements for possible
extensions to RPC and NFS (in the context of a minor
revision).
=================================================
Goals and Milestones:
Done Issue strawman Internet-Draft for v4
Done Submit Initial Internet-Draft of requirements document
Done Submit Final Internet-Draft of requirements document
Done AD reassesses WG charter
Done Submit v4 Internet-Draft sufficient to begin prototype
implementations
Done Begin Interoperability testing of prototype implementations
Done Submit NFS version 4 to IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard.
Done Conduct final Interoperability tests
Done Conduct full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features
Done Update API advancement draft
Done Form core design team to work on NFS V4
migration/replication requirements and protocol
Done Submit revised NFS Version 4 specification (revision to RFC
3010) to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
OCT 02 ADs to submit API advancement internet draft as
informational RFC (needed to advance GSSAPI to Draft
Standard to allow advancement of NFS Version 4)
OCT 02 Strawman NFS V4 replication/migration protocol proposal
submitted as an ID
NOV 02 Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
NOV 02 AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
draft
DEC 02 Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB
DEC 02 Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB
DEC 02 Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4
migration/replication requirements document, review scope
of task
FEB 03 Submit related Proposed Standards required by NFS Version 4
for consideration as Draft Standards to IESG - RFCs 1831,
1833, 2203, 2078, 2744, RFC 1964, & 2847
MAR 03 Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4
MAY 03 Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features
MAY 03 Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication
MAY 03 Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to IESG for
consideration as a Proposed Standard
MAY 03 Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as
Proposed Standards
JUN 03 Submit report on results of interoperability testing
AUG 03 Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for
consideration as Draft Standard to IESG
=================================================
NEW MILESTONES
FEB 03 ADs to submit API advancement internet draft as an Informational
RFC (needed to advance GSSAPI to Draft Standard to allow
advancement of NFS Version 4)
DONE Strawman NFS V4 replication/migration protocol
proposal submitted as an ID
FEB 03 Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
FEB 03 AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements draft
FEB 03 Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB
JAN 03 Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB
JUN 03 Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4
migration/replication requirements document, review
scope of task
FEB 03 Draft problem statement I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted
JUN 03 Submit related Proposed Standards required by NFS
Version 4 for consideration as Draft Standards to
IESG - RFCs 1831, 1833, 2203, 2078, 2744, RFC 1964, & 2847
MAR 03 Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4
MAR 03 Draft requirements document I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted
APR 03 AD review of NFS/RPC/RDDP progress and charter
MAY 03 Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features
JUL 03 Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication
JUN 03 Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to
IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
JUN 03 Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as
Proposed Standards
JUN 03 Submit report on results of *NFS VERSION 4 RFC*
interoperability testing
AUG 03 Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for
consideration as Draft Standard to IESG
Reliable Multicast Transport (rmt)
----------------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2003-03-01
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Roger Kermode <Roger.Kermode@motorola.com>
Lorenzo Vicisano <lorenzo@cisco.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Transport Area Advisor:
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:rmt@ietf.org
To Subscribe: rmt-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rmt/current/maillist.html
NOTE: [This charter rev cuts out two work items that were not
progressing at all: the TRACK and GRA families.
It adds a sub-group after a lot of discussions
among ourselves and Routing - see the text...this sub-group
is a part of the xcast work, just the most stable and
least research-y part of it]
The purpose of this WG is to standardize reliable multicast transport.
Initial efforts have focused solely on the standardization of the
one-to-many transport of large amounts of data. Due to the large
number of applications that fall into this category, and the sometimes
orthogonal requirements these applications exhibit, it is believed
that a "one size fits all" protocol will be unable to meet the
requirements of all applications. In recognition of this observation,
this working group will standardize two protocol instantiations,
initially as Experimental protocols, and then as warranted, in the
standards track, from the following families:
1) A NACK-based protocol.
2) An "Asynchronous Layered Coding protocol that uses Forward Error
Correction.
In addition, the rmt WG will have a sub-group for a different task.
This sub-group will develop a protocol for a simple unicast
replication service that is specifically designed to address the need
of very-small-scale multicast sessions. The goal of this protocol is
to provide a small-scale replication solution that does not require
per-session state in all parts of the network crossed by the session
traffic, unlike native IP multicast. The applicability of this
protocol is to situations where end-to-end unicast replication is not
appropriate due to bandwidth limitation in some part of the
network (usually last-mile links).
It should be noted that this simple unicast replication work is in a
sub-group because a strict interpretation of this service would
determine that it falls somewhat outside the transport domain (other
than congestion control) and has more routing issues than most of the
other work in rmt. Given that the bulk of the experts who would be
qualified to comment on this work item are already active participants
in the rmt WG, the Routing and Transport Area Directors have concluded
to make an exception and develop it in this working group's sub-group
instead of forming a new working group.
The WG will carry out protocol standardization in general by composing a
a set of RFCs that specify
- building blocks: A set of easily-separable coarse-grained modular
components that are common to multiple protocols along with abstract
APIs that define a building block's access methods and their
arguments.
- protocol instantiations: Specifications that define the necessary
gluing logic and minimal additional functionality required to realize
a working protocol from one or more building blocks. These
specifications will also include an abstract API that defines the
interface between the protocol implementation and an application.
The WG has previously completed work on three documents to assist in
the standardization process. RFC2887 describes the design-space in
which the one-to-many transport protocols will be developed. RFC3048
explains the concepts of building-blocks and protocol
instantiations. RFC3269 provides guidelines to authors of drafts that
specify building-blocks and protocol instantiations.
The WG will generate and submit for standardization drafts of the
following building-blocks for use in the construction of the two
protocols: congestion control, negative acknowledgments, forward error
correction, generic mechanisms for router assist, and to address the
RFC 2357 security requirements.
The WG will also standardize and generate RFCs for the following two
protocol instantiations: A NACK-based protocol, and an Asynchronous
Layered Coding (ALC) protocol that uses Forward Error Correction.
RFC 3450 is the Experimental RFC of the ALC protocol instantiation.
If new requirements are identified that cannot be satisfied with the
building-blocks and protocol instantiations described above, the Area
Directors in consultation with the IESG may add additional
building-blocks and protocol instantiations to the working group
deliverables.
This working group will work closely with the Internet Research Task
Force (IRTF) groups on Reliable Multicast (RMRG) and
Secure Multicast (SMUG), especially for meeting the congestion control
and security requirements mandated by RFC 2357. This working group may
work with the Area Directors to recharter to standardize reliable
multicast for additional scenarios beyond the one-to-many transport of
bulk data once they are sufficiently well understood.
MILESTONES
Done Submit design-space, building-blocks, and guidelines drafts for
publication as Informational RFCs
Done Initial Drafts for the following building blocks: negative
acknowledgments, forward error correction, a generic signaling
mechanism for router assist, and transport protection
Done Submit Initial Drafts for the three protocol instantiations.
Done Review drafts at the Adelaide IETF
Done Submit Initial Draft for Congestion Control
Done Complete building-block drafts WG Last-Call and submit for
publication as Proposed Standard
Done Complete building blocks and protocol instantiations for
ALC and submit for publication as Experimental
The following are tentative:
MAY 03 Submit TFMCC congestion control building block for
publication as Experimental
AUG 03 Submit WEBRC (congestion control for ALC) building
block for publication as Experimental
AUG 03 Submit NACK protocol instantiation for publication
as Experimental
AUG 03 Submission of simple unicast replication building block
including congestion control for publication as Experimental
DEC 03 ALC protocol instantiation and building blocks
submitted for publication as Proposed Standard.
DEC 03 TFMCC submitted for publication as Proposed
Standard.
DEC 03 Conclude working group, unless determined with Area Directors
that there is additional work for the charter
Problem Statement (problem)
---------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2003-01-31
Current Status: Active Proposed Working Group
Chair(s):
Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
General Area Director(s):
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
General Area Advisor:
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:problem-statement@alvestrand.no
To Subscribe: problem-statement-request@alvestrand.no
Archive: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/
Description of Working Group:
Discussions during 2002 have revealed a significant number of thoughts
about problems that exist with the way the IETF operates. In advance of
trying to change the IETF procedures and rules to deal with these
problems, the IETF should have a clear, agreed description of what
problems we are trying to solve.
This group is charged with producing the document describing these
problems. The analysis of the problem should seek out the root causes
of the problems as well as the perceived derivative problems.
The intent is that the group will discuss issues on its mailing list,
and that there will be an editing team to produce a clear concise
problem statement on which the group has come to consensus and present
to the IETF as a basis for an IETF consensus.
As a second work item, the group will also produce a proposal for a
process to develop solutions to the problems identified by this working
group.
It is not a part of this group's charter to propose solutions to the
problems.
The work items will be reviewed in IESG plenary at the IETF.
Goals and Milestones:
JAN 03 Group formed
FEB 03 First I-D of problem statement issued
MAR 03 Problem statement reviewed at the IESG Plenary
MAR 03 First I-D of process proposal issued
MAY 03 Problem statement submitted for IESG review
JUL 03 Process proposal reviewed at the IESG Plenary
AUG 03 Process proposal submitted for IESG review
OCT 03 Re-charter or close working group