Internet Area Directors: o Stev Knowles: stev@ftp.com o Claudio Topolcic: topolcic@bbn.com Area Summary reported by Stev Knowles/FTP Software and Claudio Topolcic/BBN The following BOFs and working groups met during the July IETF meeting in Toronto: o IP Over Fibre Channel BOF (FIBERIP) o DNS IXFR, Notification, and Dynamic Update Working Group (DNSIND) o Internet Stream Protocol V2 Working Group (ST2) o IP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (IPATM) o Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) o Service Location Protocol Working Group (SVRLOC) IP over Fibre Channel BOF (FIBERIP) The Internet-Draft ``draft-rekhter-fibre-channel-03.txt'' specifies a method of encapsulating IP and ARP on fibre channel hardware and protocols. There are two independent interoperable implementations of this document. The purpose of this BOF was to review the Internet-Draft, look at the implementation experience, fix all the loose ends in the Internet-Draft and then recommend it for advancement as a Proposed Standard. Yakov Rekhter, the BOF chair, presented an overview of the Internet-Draft. He also reported on the status of the IBM implementation, and the status of the SSESCO implementation based on the information provided by Craig W. Carlson from SSESCO. The group agreed that the document should be advanced as a Proposed Standard as soon as SSESCO, IBM and HP implementations are tested for interoperability. Ken Hays agreed to lead the interoperability test effort. The group agreed to publish the N_Port MIB Internet-Draft as an Informational RFC once there is at least one implementation of this MIB. The document will be updated to make it SMIv2 conformant. The group agreed that there is no need to form an IETF working group or establish a separate mailing list. DNS IXFR, Notification, and Dynamic Update Working Group (DNSIND) The DNSIND Working Group first met Tuesday evening. Aside from the usual suspects, dynamic update work attracted DHCP folk, and Paul Mockapetris and Paul Vixie (BIND author) played prominent roles. o The planned structure of the drafts is not satisfactory, so this will be revised by December. o Sue Thomson presented the Thomson/Rekhter/Bound/Ford dynamic update proposal, which is motivated by DHCP. It was better received than people's social manners might have indicated. o There is a non-trivial dependency on the work of DNSSEC, so a delegation was sent to their meeting on Wednesday. It appears that DNSSEC will indeed provide what DNSIND feels it will need, i.e., authority at the name level. o Paul Vixie presented his thoughts on `DNS v2.' Incremental enhancements to the mechanisms which will support the features discussed, e.g., the UDP packet assumption to be lengthened by allowing the requestor to state the largest they can accept. o The IXFR/notify work at ISI is stalled. The working group may just grab it and run. Notify is easy, IXFR needs some thought. o There was some discussion of whether the work needs to be split into multiple working groups. No conclusion was reached. A second session was requested at Tuesday's meeting. Yakov donated the BGP slot on Thursday afternoon. o There was much discussion of the IXFR and dynamic update problems as a distributed database problem, and much work on how to use a minimal simple model as opposed to `solving' the big problem. o Paul Mockapetris presented a constrained model. o Paul Vixie showed how he had already finished a trial implementation of notify, and said he would write up the draft. Two sessions will be needed in San Jose, plus a joint meeting with the DNS Security Working Group (DNSSEC). Internet Stream Protocol V2 Working Group (ST2) The ST2 Working Group met twice in Toronto with the objective of resolving all outstanding issues in the revision to ST-2 so that new Internet-Drafts could be completed by the end of September 1994. The first meeting was focused on reviewing the existing draft documents. It was decided that instead of producing three RFCs, the three current drafts would be merged into two: Introduction to ST-2, and ST Protocol Specification. It was agreed that the introduction document could be easily updated, so the group focused on review of the ST Protocol Specification (dated 24 July 94). The major points discussed during the review included changes to improve readability, fine tuning the state machine, fixes to control messages, clarifying some timeouts, dropping Source Routing as an operational option, and clarifying Stream preemption. The second meeting was intended to resolve all outstanding issues and to delegate action items for completion of the drafts. Issues addressed included the SCMP fragmentation procedure, the Change Request message, STATUS and HELLO messages, groups of streams, Flowspecs, the treatment of Subnets, ST to IP encapsulation, and Substreams/Drop priorities. IP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (IPATM) The meeting was attended by 122 people. Roughly a dozen or so had done the reading homework (roughly 10% of the attendees) by reviewing the signaling draft. Only three RFC 1577 implementors were in attendance: FORE, NRL and Cray Research. No implementation status reports were given. Drew Perkins gave an update of ATM Forum activities. Issues of UNI 3.0 and 3.1 were raised (they are not compatible). UNI 3.1 will be out in October/November. UNI 4.0 will be out in 1995. The ATM Forum is creating a Multiprotocol over ATM BOF and has requested a list of requirements from the IPATM Working Group. Maryann Perez presented a summary of changes in the ATM signaling draft. Few comments where raised. The document Last Call closes on August 6th. The consensus was to request that this document be raised to Proposed Standard and have UNI 3.1 support added on the Proposed to Draft roll. The framework document will be updated, a synopsis of the conventional IP model will be included, and the framework will be published; most likely as an Informational RFC, perhaps as some other publication. Multicasting has been delayed again. The group is going to be discussing this as part of the requirements submission to the ATM Forum. This led into a discussion of content for the submission. The ATM Forum liaison would like the recommendations in slide format, with backup rational where needed. A mailing list will be formed shortly for coordinating this submission. It was noted at the meeting that this requirements list spans beyond the IPATM Working Group. This working group will produce a set of IPv4 requirement slides that will cover the scope of RFCs 1483, 1577 and 1626 and include sufficient statements to cover ROLC issues. Other issues that came up: IPng over ATM will not be covered by this working group unless in many months from now it gets added to our charter. A note that implementors might consider supporting a default 64K MTU for 622 Mbps links, etc., will only be considered as part of a Proposed to Draft roll of RFCs 1577 and 1626. The 15 August model for the Internet ATM NAPs was presented. Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) The PPP Working Group has a new editor, Scott Wasson. The role of the editor is that of ``designated reviewer,'' responsible for readability, clarity of explanation, and consistency of language and technical approach among documents produced by this working group. Scott will work out with each author how they will interact, whether by Scott submitting comments or whether he edits the author's text. Currently in the IESG's in basket are the following documents: o New as of this IETF, to Proposed Standard: - draft-ietf-pppext-netbios-fcp-05.txt o Already in the in-basket, to Proposed Standard: - draft-ietf-pppext-dataencap-02.txt - draft-ietf-pppext-frame-relay-03.txt - draft-ietf-pppext-multilink-09.txt o To Draft Standard: - OSI CP (RFC 1377) - DECNET CP (RFC 1376) Status of the Compression Control Protocol and associated documents: Motorola sent a letter to ISOC indicating that the CCP may infringe on one or more of its patents. ISOC is seeking to communicate with Motorola, but has to date not secured the necessary assurances. The patent numbers are 5,130,993, transmitting encoded data on unreliable networks, and 5,245,614, vocabulary memory allocation for adaptive data compression of frame-multiplexed traffic. This affects the following drafts: o draft-ietf-pppext-compression-04.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-bsd-compress-01.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-gandalf-00.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-hpppc-00.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-magnalink-01.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-predictor-00.txt o draft-ietf-pppext-stacker-01.txt Service Location Protocol Working Group (SVRLOC) This working group discussed the last posted Internet-Draft which is to be considered for submission as a Proposed Standard. The consensus of the group was that after several modifications and clarifications the document should move to the next step in the standards track. The specification will be revised and also submitted as a service location protocol for IPv6. The author will acquire the correct constants and submit the document for consideration by the IPng Area. The author will accomplish these changes by the end of September and resubmit the document.