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: 2019-Feb-11
Document File: 10 page(s) / 14K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. Crocker: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1396: DOI

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. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 16% 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

Crocker [Page 1]

RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993

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 make in the future. In contrast, many if not all on the IAB felt that they were trying to open up the discussion and their memos were intended as advice and not decisions. From my perspective, this form of miscommunication was partly due to the extended size of the Internet technical community. When the community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day to day workings of the technical groups. With the creation of the IESG and area di...

Processing...
Loading...