Meeting minutes

Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com> Thu, 16 July 1992 17:16 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02752; 16 Jul 92 13:16 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02748; 16 Jul 92 13:16 EDT
Received: from harvard.harvard.edu by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18753; 16 Jul 92 13:18 EDT
Received: by harvard.harvard.edu (5.54/a0.25) (for IETF-archive@nri.reston.va.us) id AA23639; Thu, 16 Jul 92 13:11:57 EDT
Received: by Xylogics.COM (4.12/4.7_jlv1/7/90) id AA14480; Thu, 16 Jul 92 13:13:33 edt
Received: by Xylogics.COM (4.12/4.7_jlv1/7/90) id AA07504; Thu, 16 Jul 92 13:13:32 edt
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 13:13:32 edt
From: Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com>
Message-Id: <9207161713.AA07504@Xylogics.COM>
To: ietf-rip@xylogics.com
Cc: mdavies@NRI.Reston.VA.US, gvaudre@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Meeting minutes

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Gary Malkin

RIP-V2 Working Group Minutes

Status Update



Chairperson		Gary Scott Malkin / gmalkin@xylogics.com

Mailing List		ietf-rip(-request)@xylogics.com

Date of last meeting	Boston IETF / July 15, 1992

Date of next meeting	Washington IETF / November 1992

Progress		The group made a few minor editorial comments
			to the RIP-2 draft and 1 typo change in the
			RIP-2 MIB draft.  The new version of the RIP-2
			draft will be put out as an I-D next week
			and I will ask that it be moved into the
			standards track.  The RIP-2 MIB will also be
			proposed for inclusion in the standards track
			as soon as it has been blessed by the Network
			Management Area Directorate.


Milestones:
	Washington	Review of implementations.

	TBD		Given successful implementation experience,
			advancement of RIP-II to Draft Standard.  Submission
			of MIB into the standards track.

	TBD		Final meeting to achieve closure on any pending
			issues.


Agenda

	o Review RIP-2 draft

	o Review RIP-2 MIB draft

	o Decide to submit the drafts for inclusion into the standards track


We held a short meeting.  There was some discussion about whether or
not the routing domain field was useful.  It was determined that it
was useful for creating routing policies.  That decision will be
reflected in the draft.

It was determined, without opposition, that the drafts should be submitted
for inclusion into the standards track.  There are currently two independent
implementations of RIP-2 and one implementation of the MIB (of which I am
aware).

The group is to be congratulated for completeing the RIP-2 draft according
to the original schedule and for completeing the RIP-2 MIB draft ahead
of the original schedule.