CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Tony Bates/RIPE NCC Minutes of the Generic Internet Service Description Working Group (GISD) After the agenda was presented, Tony Bates gave a general overview of GISD. The overview prompted a short discussion on focus including the following topics: o Is it meant for users ? No o Is it meant as a checklist ? No o Is it a service profile ? No, but could be in the future An overview of the GISD structure was also given showing how GISD aspects are documented. Some concern was raised about the use of minimal/common/maximal in the sense that this could cause some classification of service providers (SPs). However, the general view was that in the the context of GISD, it should be possible to word this in such a way so as not to make this happen. The idea behind this is to show the options rather than to categorise; occasionally it is useful to show different options. The issue of ``who or what constitutes an SP'' was raised. The point is that anyone can call themselves a service provider but this is in fact not the issue of GISD. The point behind GISD is to write a document so people know what services an SP can potentially provide and how SPs should interact with each other regarding these services. Some people also GISD as a direct template (i.e. a ``tick the box'' type of document). Again, this is not the intention of GISD. However, it could be possible at a later date to produce a template using the terminology and list of aspects detailed in GISD. Tony Bates gave a overview of the aspects themselves. It was noted that ``training'' is becoming more of an issue for SPs to provide to their customers and this could an aspect within the ``Information and coordination'' area. A status of the current draft was given. Thirty-eight aspects have been defined as a result of two previous IETF BOFs on the subject. Thus far only eight aspects had been drafted, and the intention is to get members of the GISD group to draft some of these aspects. An action was placed on Tony to produce a short GISD aspect guideline document giving details of the format required and an index of possible aspects still needed to be drafted. The intention would be to work on the areas one at a time. A basic overview of the process: Guideline Document (Format + index) | | \./ Areas ----------------> Volunteers (select an aspect) /.\ | | | | | +-----------------------Review | \./ All 6 areas drafted A related idea was when sending the index of aspects out, to seek good candidates for a certain topic outside of the working group. Several people committed to writing aspects once they had seen the guideline document. The meeting concluded with the general consensus that the document should be possible to come together for review by Seattle and final copy by Toronto. Attendees Vikas Aggarwal vikas@jvnc.net Tony Bates tony@ripe.net Steven Blair sblair@us.dell.com Scott Bradner sob@harvard.edu Henry Clark henryc@oar.net David Conrad davidc@iij.ad.jp Vince Fuller vaf@barrnet.net Eugene Hastings hastings@psc.edu Matt Hood hood@nsipo.nasa.gov Jeanine Kamerdze kamerdze@nsipo.nasa.gov Scott Kaplan scott@ftp.com Sean Kennedy liam@nic.near.net Kim Long klong@sura.net Dan Magorian magorian@ni.umd.edu Bill Manning bmanning@rice.edu Glenn Mansfield glenn@aic.co.jp Stephen Miller smiller@bbn.com Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net Scott Paisley paisley@central.bldrdoc.gov Andrew Partan asp@uunet.uu.net Brad Passwaters bjp@eng.umd.edu Marsha Perrott perrott@prep.net Henry Sinnreich hsinnreich@mcimail.com Bernhard Stockman boss@ebone.net Marten Terpstra marten@ripe.net John Veizades veizades@ftp.com Evan Wetstone evanw@vnet.ibm.com Chris Wheeler cwheeler@cac.washington.edu