Internet Area Directors: o Stev Knowles: stev@ftp.com o Claudio Topolcic: topolcic@bbn.com Area Summary reported by Stev Knowles/FTP Software, Dave Piscitello/Core Competence and Claudio Topolcic/BBN The following BOFs and working groups met during the March IETF meeting in Seattle: o Compression Encapsulation Over IP BOF (COMPEN) o Data Link Switching BOF (DLSW) 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 Router Requirements Working Group (RREQ) Compression Encapsulation Over IP BOF (COMPEN) Twenty-three people attended the COMPEN BOF in Seattle. It was generally agreed that there are situations where people have a need for encapsulation, such as compression. It was the rough consensus of the group that, if a working group is formed, it should address the general issue of encapsulation over IP. There was some discussion of whether or not encapsulation over IP is a problem that is already being solved by PPP, and whether PPP provides solutions to encapsulation problems. It was established that there is enough interest to form a working group on Generic Encapsulation Over IP, and the COMPEN mailing list will be used to work together to modify the existing draft charter to reflect the proposed working group's goals. Data Link Switching BOF (DLSW) In addition to a large amount of technical discussion, the BOF spent a considerable amount of time discussing the political ramifications of a working group being formed within the IETF and being recognized by the AIW (APPN Implementers Workshop). Included in this discussion was the fact that, while the IETF meetings are open to all comers, the AIW restricts the press from attending the AIW meetings, or participating on their mailing list. The AIW and the IETF, since they are based on dissimilar models, have some work to do in order to charter this cross-organizational working group. Both groups need to recognize the institution of the other, and both need to work together to recognize that they will need to perform this work as peers, without one group having undue influence over the other. The area director looks forward to the working group being formed, and hopes that both organizations can work out their differences in a timely manner. Internet Stream Protocol V2 Working Group (ST2) The meeting began with a review of the following: o Results from the interim meeting held at GMU in February o Changes to date from RFC 1190 o Drafts posted to the list (available via FTP) The following items were discussed: o Services provided by ST-II, as viewed by the user o Revised state diagrams o A number of specific technical issues The meeting concluded with a review of action items and issues to be discussed on the mailing list. IP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (IPATM) After the Toronto meeting, the working will go ``dormant.'' Current work is the implementation guide, multicast, and security. This work should be completed either before or during the Toronto meeting. The meeting consisted of an ATM Forum update from Drew Perkins, a presentation and discussion about LAN emulation led by Keith McCloghrie, and a discussion of multicast and security issues. Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) ``The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)'' (draft-ietf-pppext-lcp-fs-00.txt) and ``PPP in HDLC-like Framing'' (draft-ietf-pppext-hdlc-fs-00.txt) are intended to become Standards. As some have found a need for an overview, Bill Simpson will write one. Joel Halpern and Bill will finalize some language in both ``PPP LCP Option for Data Encapsulation Selection'' (draft-ietf-pppext-dataencap-02.txt) and ``PPP in Frame Relay'' (draft-ietf-pppext-frame-relay-02.txt), and post drafts. The Last Call process will then be initiated to move the documents to Proposed Standard status. An updated draft of ``The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)'' (draft-ietf-pppext-netbios-fcp-04.txt) is intended to become a Proposed Standard. There was much discussion of ``The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)'' (draft-ietf-pppext-multilink-07.txt). The author will make changes. John Klensin presented the IESG review of the compression draft. Dave Rand is to clarify the language about exactly what is being standardized. The IESG wants to be able to know what must be interoperable for the draft to be considered a Standard. Fred Baker will talk to Marshall Rose and Stev Knowles about developing an ISDN MIB. A group of people met for lunch on 28 February to discuss PPP authentication. This effort is in part an outgowth of the NASREQ Working Group. Three proposals have been posted as Internet-Drafts recently for providing enhanced authentication procedures for PPP. These drafts are: o ``The Arbitrary Handshake Authentication (AHA) protocol'' (draft-ietf-pppext-aha-auth-00.txt) o ``The Generic Athentication Protocol (GAP)'' (draft-ietf-pppext-gap-auth-00.txt) o ``PPP Kerberos Authentication Protocol (KAP)'' (draft-ietf-pppext-kap-auth-00.txt) Larry Blunk will create a mailing list, ppp-auth@merit.edu, for preliminary discussion of this topic by the interested parties, and inform the PPP list of its existence. After consensus is reached, open discussion of PPP authentication will proceed on the ietf-ppp@merit.edu mailing list. The model here is PPP compression, which has a number of procedures, mostly covered by patent claims, and mostly proprietary. One standards track document was written which indicates how these procedures can be accommodated (PPP CCP), and the various vendors provided FYI RFCs for their procedures. Here, the supporting RFCs may be FYI or standards-track, and may or may not be supplied by vendors. However, the framework is standards-track. Router Requirements Working Group (RREQ) The RREQ Working Group met on Wednesday for about one hour. The group had three agenda items: o The current Internet-Draft was adopted and approved for publication as an Historic RFC. o The working group developed a list of items, in addition to the ones presented in the Internet-Draft, which need to be addressed in order to bring router requirements up-to-date. o Volunteers were solicited in order to carry out writing assignments on several issues which can be completed in 1994. First drafts of the new text should be available for discussion before the working group's next meeting in Toronto.