Browse Prior Art Database

The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED) (RFC1640)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002476D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Jun-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 8 page(s) / 20K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. Crocker: AUTHOR

Abstract

This report, originally prepared in January 1993 provides a summary of the POISED 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 14% of the total text.

Network Working Group S. Crocker

Request for Comments: 1640 TIS

Category: Informational June 1994

The Process for Organization of Internet Standards

Working Group (POISED)

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo

does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of

this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This report, originally prepared in January 1993 provides a summary

of the POISED 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 IESG then formulated a plan of action for further exploration of

the issues and forwarded these recommendations to the 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 many an IAB decision or, equivalently, a sense of the

decisions the IAB would mak...