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.