IPNG Directorate Teleconference March 31, 1994 Reported by: Steve Coya This report contains IPNG Directorate meeting notes, positions and action items. These minutes were compiled by the IETF Secretariat which is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NCR 8820945. ATTENDEES --------- Scott Bradner / Harvard Allison Mankin / NRL J Allard / Microsoft Jim Bound / DEC Ross Callon / Wellfleet Brian Carpenter / CERN Dave Clark / MIT John Curran / NEARnet Steve Deering / Xerox PARC Dino Farinacci / Cisco Eric Fleischman / Boeing Paul Francis / NTT Mark Knopper / Ameritech Greg Minshall / Novell Frank Solensky / FTP Rob Ullmann / Lotus Lixia Zhang / Xerox PARC Regrets ------- Steve Bellovin / AT&T Jon Crowcroft / UCL Frank Kastenholz / FTP Daniel Karrenberg / RIPE Craig Partridge / BBN Note: This was a dinner meeting held during the Seattle IETF meeting 1. The idea of an IPNG directorate reteat was discussed, and it was agreed that not only was it a good idea, it was necessary. It was also suggested that the retreat include non-Directorate invitees (Hinden and Ford we mentioned as examples). 2. It was suggested that the Requirements document should NOT be considered as a checklist (missing architectural overviews), but it would be a good idea to have the IPng candidates defend their proposals against the framework of the requirements document. 3. Eric proposed a list of 6 procedural steps or viewpoints that could be taken towards a resolution of the selection process. The six steps are: 1) "Spec Check": compare IPng alternatives to requirements doc 2) Enumerate the real technical differences between proposals in regards to the requirements 3) Enumerate the real operational differences between the proposals 4) Address real deployment and transition plans: contrast dual stack and IPAE transition scenarios 5) Proof of concept: what has actual "running code" to date demostrated about the approach -- address scalability issues if possible. 6) Identify the incentives provided by each approach for users to deploy that option. A comment was made that this list, while good, could not be accomplished in 3-4 months (by the July IETF meeting in Toronto). It was suggested that after item 1 was completed, the entire directorate should review the responses (to #1) as a group, probably at the retreat. 4. There was some spirited discussions on the fact that each proposal had both good and bad points, and it was suggested that a merger of the proposal features might still be possible in the timeframe, and be able to offer an attractive answer.