Browse Prior Art Database

The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED) (RFC1396)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002220D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 8 page(s) / 21K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. Crocker: AUTHOR

Abstract

This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG), starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to the end of 1992. Necessarily, this synopsis represents my own perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period. Quite a few people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and specific events. My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view as possible.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 13% of the total text.

Network Working Group S. Crocker

Request for Comments: 1396 Trusted Information Systems, Inc.

January 1993

The Process for Organization of Internet Standards

Working Group (POISED)

Steve Crocker, Chair

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is

unlimited.

Abstract

This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG),

starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to the

end of 1992. Necessarily, this synopsis represents my own

perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period. Quite a few

people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and specific

events. My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view as

possible.

Background and Formation of POISED Working Group

The POISED WG resulted from two sequences of activity, both

intimately related to the growth of the Internet. During 1991, there

was great concern that the IP address space was being depleted and

that the routing tables were growing too large. Some change in the

IP addressing and routing mechanisms seemed inevitable, and it became

urgent to explore and choose what those changes should be. The ROAD

Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes.

The ROAD group returned with a specific recommendation for the short

term, but did not reach a conclusion on a long term plan.

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then formulated a plan

of action for further exploration of the issues and forwarded these

recommendations to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). In June

1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met and

considered the IESG's recommendations. After considering the IESG's

recommendations, the IAB felt that additional ideas were also

important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP

protocol. The IAB communicated its concerns, and there was immediate

controversy along two dimensions. One dimension was technical: What

is the best course for evolving the IP protocol? How important or

useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack? The other dimension

was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community?

Who chooses who makes these decisions?

As often happens during periods of conflict, communication suffered

among the several parties. The June communication from the IAB was

understood by ...