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.
- Meeting minutes Gary Scott Malkin