Comments: Gated by NETN...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SLUVCA.SLU.EDU!MILLESJG
Return-Path: <@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU,
@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-nettr...@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
Return-Path: <@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:MILLE...@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: nettr...@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
X-VMS-To: @NETTRAIN
Message-ID: <66F8A95CA0C1A758@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nettrain
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 13:50:00 CST
Sender: Internet/BITNET Network Trainers < NETTR...@UBVM.BITNET>
From: NETTRAIN < MILLE...@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: IETF Report
Lines: 947
=============================================================================
Message forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator.
Address inquiries to original sender:
Date: Fri, 07 May 93 13:43:09 BST
From: Jill.Fos...@newcastle.ac.uk
My report on the Internet Engineering Task Force meeting. Most of it
concerns WGs in the User Services Area.
-- Jill
IETF - Columbus: Mar 29-Apr 2, 1993
===================================
Trip Report:
Jill Foster - Newcastle University, UK
Chairman: RARE Information Services and User Support Working Group
Introduction
============
The 26th IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Meeting took place in
Columbus, Ohio from March 29th - April 2nd. Attendance was up again
with over 535 pre-registered and a final total of 644 attendees.
My main reasons for attending (thanks to funding from RARE) were to:
o represent RARE Information Services and User Support Working
Group (which I chair)
[RARE is the Association of European Research Networks]
o join in the User Services and associated WG sessions.
o co-chair a WG session on networked information retrieval tools.
o co-chair a WG session on network training materials.
The following informal report is in note form and deals mainly with
the areas of User Support and Networked Information Retrieval,
although reports of some of the plenary sessions are also included.
Whilst it is as accurate as I can make it, it is naturally a personal
account and may be inaccurate due to lack of background information or
misinterpretation of what I heard. Corrections of fact are welcome,
but any discussion of items contained here would be best directed to
the appropriate mailing lists. Minutes of individual sessions are
also available via anonymous ftp from nri.reston.va.us
This report will be stored on the UK Mailbase Server. To retrieve a
copy, email to Mailb...@mailbase.ac.uk with the following command in
the body of the message:
send wg-isus ietf.03.93
Alternatively use anonymous ftp to: mailbase.ac.uk
file: pub/wg-isus/ietf.03.93
[Also available via gopher]
Note: in general I have not expanded acronyms as those readers
involved in a particular topic should know them whilst those who
aren't familiar with the acronyms should still be able to get a
reasonable overview of the topic.
All addresses quoted in the report are in internet (rather than UK
JANET) order.
Each section has a double underlined heading - to enable you to skip
sections not of interest.
Working Group Chairmen's Workshop
=================================
The IETF has grown so large both in terms of number of attendees at
the meetings and in terms of the number of Working Groups (WGs) that
it is no longer possible to pass on tips to WG Chairmen by word of
mouth. An informational RFC on guidelines for WG Chairmen is in
preparation. As part of the development of this, Dave Crocker held a
workshop for Working Group chairs (starting Monday at 8am!).
Dave requested feed back on his talk. The talk concentrated on
aspects of project and group management (such as the difficulties of
making progress whilst remaining fair in listening to all points of
view). It could perhaps have contained more of the nitty gritty of
the IETF procedural issues (such as progressing a document via draft
RFC to full RFC status and the components of a WG charter etc).
Nonetheless, it was a useful session, and the forthcoming RFC will be
welcome in providing much needed information in one place.
Plenary
=======
Phil Gross welcomed attendees to the IETF and spoke about the work of
the Nominating Committee. As a result of discussions at previous IETFs
about the procedural processes of the IETF and the subsequent work of
the POISED WG - about half of the IAB and IESG positions were made
available and nominations for these had been sought. The nominations
committee had been given the task of producing a short-list of
suitable candidates who could commit the level of effort required.
The committee had sent a list of nominees to the ISOC Trustees and
were expecting a decision during the IETF meeting (see later section
on Plenary).
Technical Presentation: "Next Generation of IP"
----------------------------------------------
Robert Ullman
Problems
o Address space
o Route scaling
o TCP window and sequence space (will wrap in 32s on giga bit link)
o Interoperation with version 4 required because by then will see
a large investment in commercial IP.
New generation protocol will take some time to install and by which
time several billion dollars investment in V4, therefore,
interoperability vital.
IPv7 Addresses - want
o Small number of top level administrative domains.
o Ability to subnet every network assignment.
Admin Domain
------------------|--------------|--------------
| | | | | | | Host |
------------------|--------------|--------------
Network
This is equivalent to giving everyone on the planet their own network
assignment!
o Direct mapping of IPv4 numbers.
o NSF Administrative Domain.
Data Elements ad hoc Group Meeting
==================================
IETF sessions run from 9am (sometimes 8!) until 10pm - with an
overspill into bar BOFs ("birds of a feather" informal discussions).
Nonetheless a group of people interested in (or at least concerned
about) data elements managed to squeeze in several informal meetings
to discuss the need for standardised ways of describing networked
information resources. This followed on partly from the IETF and CNI
meetings in Washington in November and the meetings set up there with
the Library of Congress and OCLC and subsequent meetings.
The group (included various IETF WG chairs, CNI (Coalition for
Networked Information) representatives, CNIDR (Clearing House for
Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval) and the Top Node
Project.
The immediate need was to try to agree on a common naming of data
elements in use by the NIR, IAFA and WHOIS++ templates and on the
syntax of the values of some of these elements.
Pete Percival (Top Node Project) - who had been battling with the
problem of describing networked information resources for some time -
tried hard to keep us focussed - but the discussions tended to be
circular.
There was some disagreement on whether or not one "record" should
refer to a resource that appeared in multiple formats or was
accessible via multiple methods. I thought it should do - looking at
it from the point of view of someone completing the record for the
resource. (Resource - such as a set of training workshop sheets
available in ascii, postscript, rtf - via anonymous ftp, email or
gopher and also available on disc or on paper.) Others, involved in
writing the tools to handle the records or templates, wanted multiple
records - one for each format.
As far as the IAFA, NIR, WHOIS++ templates are concerned, it was
agreed that we should draw up an "approved" list of fields for each WG
to choose from and use as applicable. There would be a core set of
common data elements plus some optional elements. An attempt was made
to list and agree on those elements and one of the group volunteered
to try to pull some of the discussions together.
The need for URNs (Uniform Resource Numbers) and, in the first
instance, URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) to be included - was
acknowledged.
Uniform Resource Identifier WG: Peter Deutsch, Alan Emtage
==========================================================
URI is now the union of Uniform Resource Location and Uniform Resource
Number. The idea is to identify information resources uniquely and
to allow the location of these by navigational tools.
U = Uniform
R = Resource
{ L,N,I, .... } = { Locator, Number, Identifier, ... }
In the interests of making real progress in this area, this group had
three separate sessions scheduled during this IETF.
URL Session
-----------
Tim Berners-Lee's revised document was discussed. The problems of
addressing sub-objects in a service independent way and of specifying
URLs for filenames containing non Latin characters was raised.
It was suggested that the MIME specifications were relevant in this
area and should be considered rather than producing a separate
different specification.
It was agreed that in the interests of making progress and of getting
out an RFC that the URL should be kept simple and that the other needs
and problems should be pushed to the URN. Fragmentation would also be
discussed only at a later stage. The document was to get one more
pass on the mailing list before being submitted as an RFC.
URLs are transient and this fact might pose a security risk as it may
provide a false reference and point people to the wrong document.
There might be a need for separate authentication in some cases.
URI Session
-----------
There is difficulty in assigning an identifier to variant forms of a
document some of which are "lossy" translations of the original (for
example without format information). We need the flexibility to
extract content on a variety of levels.
We need "Citation" information.
We are beginning to see servers that could say "I have this document
and I can convert it to 32 different formats for you".
A paper submitted to the mailing list by John Kunze was discussed.
The URI is the first thing a user will get back from a search. He
will need to be able to make a quick decision on which URI he wants.
The URI could give cost/no-cost indication.
Information needs to be both human and machine/tool readable. Need a
Uniform Resource Citation and a method of updating these.
Peter Deutsch talked about URNs (why?, characteristics, etc) and a
publishing model.
Need URNs for
o testing equality of content
o tracking and versioning
o permanent naming.
He maintained that the author should have the authority to determine
equality but this should be a transferable right. The URN should be
unique and be assigned when the document is "published" via a
"publisher".
Clifford Lynch pointed out that there was not a clean distinction
between content and representation. Different people have different
ideas on the equality of two documents. For example an archivist may
not agree with a librarian. Different publishing agencies may also
have different criteria. Perhaps there will be different name spaces
with URNs being unique within a given name space.
There was a heated argument as to whether there could be a unique URN
for a given resource which contained changing data (for example a
weather database, gopher menu item, etc). The URN would point to the
"box" whose contents might change.
There is a need for extra information about objects. Karen Sollins
talked about a bag of "factoids" (attribute: value pairs) associated
with the resource. Needed to be able to define a set of attributes
(but an open set). Should use RFC822 and MIME extensions for this.
Tim Berners-Lee pointed out that the http specification had used the
RFC822 specification and added some additional attributes - such as
the operations which could be performed on the object.
Have URN -> identification of object
URC (citation) -> Description
URL -> Location and access information
Erik Jul (OCLC) recommended caution when discussing the description.
He said terms had been formalised in librarianship and information
science.
Need for a pilot naming service on the net (for URNs).
Need Data Element names and a list of values.
Need mechanism for handing around non-text attributes (e.g. icons).
It was agreed that someone needed to write a paper to define the
context of these discussions for those coming in to it (particularly
as library people become involved).
Alan Emtage and Chris Weider intend to do this.
Mailing list: u...@bunyip.com
To join, mail to: uri-requ...@bunyip.com
Archive: archives.cc.mcgill.ca
Directory: /pub/uri
WHOIS and Network Information Look Up Service Working Group: WNILS:
==================================================================
Joan Gargano
The WHOIS++ project aims to develop a lightweight useful Internet
Directory Service using simple technology.
The data model is template oriented.
Structure of WHOIS++ database (logical)
Template type 1 type 2 type N etc
--------- ---------- ----------
| 1 | | | | |
--------- | ---------- | ---------- |
| 2 | | | | | | | |
--------- |-- ----------- |-- ----------- |--
| 3 | | | | | | | |
| |-- | |- | |-
| | | | | |
--------- ----------- -----------
people services ......
Summary information from WHOIS++ servers is propagated up the tree to
"centroids". Clients can query parent servers to find servers with
given keywords.
A new document (WHOIS++ Architecture Document) had been posted to the
WNILS list on the Thursday before the meeting. A pilot version of the
server had been coded in November and they were currently working on
extensions for optional extras, such as a multi-lingual facility and
security and authentication. Dave Crocker suggested that the MIME
Specification should be used as the basis for some work in this area.
Other work required:
Error messages
extending centroids
writing templates
support for synonyms (meeting voted against work on this)
Data Management tools.
BUNYIP (Peter Deutsch et al) had a contract to work on a URN->URL
server by the end of April.
Jim Fullton reported that they have students working on WHOIS++
clients. Mark Prior (Adelaide) is also working on a server.
The aim is to get the current document to an internet draft as soon as
possible (feed back required) and to have working server code by end
April.
mailing list: ietf-wn...@ucdavis.edu
mail archives: /pub/archive/wnils
or gopher: ucdavis.edu port 70
Integration of Internet Information Resources Working Group (IIIR):
==================================================================
Chris Weider
The purpose of this working group was to start to pull together some
of the applications (WAIS, gopher, archie) and to work on
interoperability issues, what new tools should do and to discuss
gateway protocol design.
Chris Weider had written a paper on "Transponders". The idea was that
each networked information resource had an extra "active" bit that
remembered who knew about it (held references to it). The purpose of
the transponder was to let these "users" know when the resource was
moved from its current location. This would require URNs and URLs to
be in place first.
The vision of the group was of an information architecture that
allowed for a variety of protocols (gopher, WAIS, WWW ...) and
involved a directory service for resolving a URN -> URL(s).
The group was chartered to produce a taxonomy of services such as:
Resource Discovery (WHOIS++ eventually)
Resource Location archie
Resource Access gopher, W3, WAIS
Resource Management
A taxonomy would indicate the holes in the architecture and would help
to focus the debate and would help to rationalise how new information
retrieval topics are addressed in the IETF. (Need to avoid the
current proliferation of WGs.)
IIIR: create RFCs for protocols not yet documented (e.g. gopher
protocol).
User Services Working Group Chair: Joyce Reynolds
===========================
US-WG is the umbrella WG for the various user services area WGs. This
is the group which spawns new WGs and coordinates the work in this
area.
Mailing list for this group: u...@nnsc.nsf.net
To join, mail to: us-wg-requ...@nnsc.nsf.net
Joyce Reynolds reported that the User Glossary, the DISI (Directory
Information Services Infrastructure) and the NOC Tools Working Groups
had completed their work and closed down.
New Working Groups included IDS (Integrated Directory Services) and
the Network Training Working Group.
The Internet Users' Glossary RFC1392/FYI18 had been completed.
RARE ISUS WG Report: Jill Foster
--------------------------------
I had previously circulated a report to the us-wg mailing list
prior to the IETF. this report is available via anonymous ftp
from:
mailbase.ac.uk
in the file:
/pub/wg-isus/isus-026
The report includes the various ISUS subgroups, their progress
and mailing lists.
Mailing list of ISUS: wg-i...@rare.nl
To join, mail to: mailser...@rare.nl
the command (in the text of the message):
subscribe wg-isus firstname lastname
(substituting your own first and last name)
INTERNICS
---------
Susan Calcari from General Atomics gave a presentation on the
Internics. There had been an NSF solicitation for network information
services for NSFnet and NREN. Three separate organisations had
received contracts to provide services for (respectively):
o Registration - Network Solutions Inc (NSI)
o Directory and Database Services - AT&T
o Information Services - General Atomics/CERFnet
[These services went live on April 1st (during the IETF)]
Susan Calcari introduced herself as an "Info Scout" and promised to
keep in touch with the IETF and us-wg in particular.
The Internic Information Services will run the NIC of NICs providing
service to mid level and campus NICs.
They would be providing access to their information by
o telnet, ftp and mail
o archie, WAIS, gopher
o NIC link (facility to distribute information out to other NICs)
They would be keeping a list of information resources and providing
discipline specific information packets. They already had information
for the following groups:
o Biology
o Chemistry
o Networking
o Librarians
o K-12 (schools)
Info Scout
A five year mission to explore new worlds, seek out new tools
and resources, to boldly go where no Internant has gone before!
Try to keep track and to have someone keep in touch and keep
information up to date.
InterNIC Mailing List
o Intended for end users and NICs
o Announcements only
o Collaborative project
o n...@InterNIC.net
to join, mail to: lists...@InterNIC.net
text: subscribe nis your name
Quality Evaluation
o Tracking
o Trouble tickets
o Reports
o Internal quality scores
Co-ordination Services
o InterNIC Liaison Council
o International Co-operation
o Representation to the Community
Community Outreach to include:
IETF, Farnet, CNI, CIX, ISOC, Educom, SIGUCS
NIS "Fest" (National meeting for NIC people)
NIS minifests (small regional ones)
Training
o Use the experts
o work with the midlevels and campuses
o offer established courses at a discount
InterNIC Team Co-ordination
o unified InterNIC Interface
o common trouble ticket system
o joint community activities (did Interop together for example)
as appropriate.
Unified InterNIC Interface
o Common telephone identity
.800.444.4345
o Common electronic identity
i...@internic.net
Reference Desk will answer this mailbox and phone
Individual Contact Information
o Information services
i...@is.internic.net
o Directory and Database Services
a...@ds.internic.net
o Registration Services
hostmas...@rs.internic.net
Registration Services will run WHOIS and DNS and will have T1 link.
There were questions raised re performance of machines chosen for
services.
NSF and charging
Nothing offered on-line will be charged for (at least for two years)
Cost recovery on hard copy.
Commercial community will be charged at cost plus.
Seminars - charged for - cost recovery.
Fees collected will be ploughed back into project in first five years
- not for profit.
Full staff of seven (two currently).
Addresses to contact:
s...@internic.net - suggestions for information to put up
i...@internic.net - general queries
Calls routed from old NICs: NNSC and Merit
(Pat Smith of Merit said: "Goodbye and good luck!")
There would be an NIS fest West Coast July (probably)
In an early announcement of the Internic it had stated that the
Internic might charge non-US users for access to the information. I
asked Susan about this as I was concerned about the implications for
central Eastern European users and internet users from third world
countries (and the UK!). It might also inhibit a free flow of
information from Europe to the US if we then found we were paying for
information we'd provided! Susan stated that there were NO plans to
charge users for information provided on-line.
FYI 4 and 7 (FAQ): Gary Malkin
------------------------------
FYI 7 "FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to Commonly Asked
'Experienced Internet User' Questions", (Also RFC 1207), February
1991.
FYI 4 "FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to Commonly Asked
'New Internet User' Questions", (Also RFC 1325), May 1992.
Gary wanted to update the new user and experienced user
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) RFCs. He suggested "creating"
questions for FYI 4.
FIY 7 contains actual questions from mailing lists. He had
decided that it would be better to use contrived questions and
answers for this too.
To join the list, mail to: QUAIL-requ...@XYLOGICS.COM
It was suggested that people who had to answer user questions
should send in their own "top 5" frequently asked questions to
Q...@XYLOGICS.COM.
World Wide Web BOF Tim Berners Lee
==================
The purpose of the BOF was to look at the status of WWW and the
possible future directions and to get it started through the IETF
review process.
The idea of a WWW consortium was raised. There was a need for a
single point of presence to go out and push WWW. Need for a place to
register WWW servers.
WWW - sometimes difficult to install a server. Installation scripts
need more work.
The vote on whether to start a WWW news group was mentioned.
mailing list: www-t...@info.cern.ch
to join, mail to: www-talk-requ...@info.cern.ch
NISI - Networked Information Services Infrastructure WG
=======================================================
Chair: April Marine
This group is concerned with co-ordinating NICs (network information
centres) and improving the service they provide.
NIC Profile:
The group was trying to collect information on the various NICs
in the nic-profiles.
To place your NIC information:
1. anonymous ftp to merit.edu
2. get /pub/nisi/nic_template
3. edit the template and put in your NIC's information
4. mail the completed template to X500t...@merit.edu
with 'add' in the subject field
if you want more information
send to the same address with "help" in subject field
NETHELP:
The idea was that a new inexperienced user should be able to sit
down at a terminal or PC and say "nethelp". This idea has been
around for about five years now and the group were facing a decision
on whether to drop this idea.
Ed Krol had come up with some suggestions on how to implement
this. The user's machine should be able to send a packet to the
network to find a help file - which would be serviced by the
nearest entity - such as the campus router or national provider.
The difficulty of course would be the need to update thousands of
routers.
Some simpler suggestions were made at the meeting, in particular
Susan Calcari suggested that the local NIC Services contact could
be added to the Templates used for registering Networks - so that
a user who did "whois" for his network would be presented with
the contact information.
Mailing list: n...@merit.edu
To join, mail to: nisi-requ...@merit.edu
Also:
Mailing list: nic-fo...@merit.edu
To join, mail to: nic-forum-requ...@merit.edu
Plenary
=======
Erik Huizer: IETF Amsterdam - what to expect.
Erik Huizer gave a short entertaining presentation on Amsterdam
(complete with 35mm slides) to try to prepare prospective IETF-ers for
the first IETF meeting outside of North America (July '93). He
appeared in wooden clogs (which he presented to Vint Cerf) and handed
out Jeneva and chocolates to various of the IESG and Secretariat.
He explained where Holland was "for the benefit of those who had
passed through the US educational system" and that people in Europe
tended to be more polite to one another. (Hmm!)
The conference centre is separate from the hotels (and therefore the
registration fee will be slightly higher). He went on to say that
there are 1.8 bikes/person in Holland; that you might see more than
just coffee on the menu in a coffee shop and that Holland is smaller
than Lake Michigan!
Networked Information Retrieval WG
==================================
Co-chairs: Jill Foster, Jane Smith (for George Brett)
Jane Smith (Assistant Director of CNIDR) reported on the Clearing
House for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval. They have a
cooperative agreement with NSF from April 1st and will be coordinating
with the three INTERNICs. They will be rebundling the latest version
of WAIS with various other bits and pieces: FreeWAIS. Close liaison
with Brewster Kahle (now of WAIS Inc) will be maintained. Peter
Scott's Hytelnet will be supported and distributed via CNIDR for a $20
donation for this shareware.
Jill Foster gave a brief report on the RARE Information Services and
User Support Working Group and the various sub groups (Multimedia
Information Services, UNITE: user network interface to everything,
etc).
NIR "status report":
Since the Washington NIR WG, the information on most of the NIR groups
and tools had been updated from the appropriate contacts and had been
edited together into an internet draft which had been made available
prior to the meeting.
Access details: anonymous ftp from mailbase.ac.uk
file name: pub/nir/nir.status.report
An appendix of "Forthcoming Attractions" had been added as well as the
other appendices discussed last time. It was agreed to move NCSA
MOSAIC for X into the main body of the report. Various other small
changes were suggested.
The next stage is "evaluation". There needs to be a check-list of
facilities. Various volunteers agreed to work on drawing up the
checklist and would then circulate this to the main list for comment.
Mailing list: n...@mailbase.ac.uk
To join, mail to: mailb...@mailbase.ac.uk
The text: subscribe nir
Archives in Directory: /pub/nir
Gopher BOF
==========
The gopher protocol document which had been around for about two years
had been submitted as a draft RFC. There was some discussion as to
whether or not it covered current agreed practice. There was also
some discussion as to whether the IETF or Gopher Con was the
appropriate forum for discussing gopher.
The Gopher Team would be attending the next IETF (in Amsterdam). It
was agreed not to mention "The L-word": A reference to the controversy
over the licensing of gopher.
Privacy Enhanced Mail
=====================
At the start of the plenary Wolfgang.Schnei...@gmd.de announced a
version of PEM for non-US citizens (to get around the export
restrictions on the algorithms).
They have a PEM filter which implements RSA Cryptography, X.509
functionality and local security features.
Available for Sun OS 4.1.2 (other Unix, MS-DOS and Mac - soon).
UCL (UK) version and Inria (France) versions also expected soon.
Internet Talk Radio
===================
Carl Malamud gave a presentation on the Internet Talk Radio which
would be produced by the company he'd set up. The idea was to produce
good quality radio programmes for distribution to various ftp sites
around the internet. (Around 60 Mbytes/week.)
The content would concern the technology, the politics etc. Sun and
O'Reilly were acting as sponsors which meant that the programmes could
be made freely available.
In the future, conferences could be covered - with daily summaries
being given.
He also suggested that the IETF "TV" (multicasting the IETF) should
now move into production mode to free up the researchers (who usually
ran the sessions).
Other ideas were mailing list summaries and Internet Traffic
congestion reports ("we have just had a report of congestion over
south-east Australia ..."). The Radio Show would feature "Geek of the
Week" - an interview with an Internet "personality", book reviews,
etc.
Training Materials WG: Ellen Hoffman and Jill Foster
=====================================================
This was the first meeting of the Working Group following the initial
BOF session in Washington.
A reminder that the main objectives are:
o to provide a comprehensive package of "mix and match" training
materials for the broad academic community.
o to provide a catalogue of existing training materials.
Ellen Hoffman described some of the Merit NSFnet Training Seminars and
Jill Foster gave an update on the UK NISP/ITTI Training Materials
Project at Newcastle. This project had pulled together a list of
network training materials available - but the project had now moved
on to the next phase. The working group agreed that this catalogue of
materials would form a useful basis for work in this group and a
couple of members volunteered to work further on this. Jill Foster
and other members of the group had tried to define a template for
collection of information about training materials taking into account
the Top Node Data Elements. There remained some outstanding issues to
be resolved - and there was a danger in this becoming bogged down in
the more general "Data Elements" discussions. It was also noted that
the template needed to include a URN (Uniform Resource Number).
The "catalogue" would be followed up on the mailing lists having been
pushed forward by a small set of volunteers.
Michael Mealing from Georgia Tech was asked to talk about
MUDs (multi-user dungeons and dragons),
MUSHs (multi-user shared halucinations) and
MOOs (object oriented MUDs)
in the context of training. The idea was that the next generation of
network users will be the "NINTENDO" generation and that we should
investigate the possibilities offered by learning by "playing" in a
directed interesting environment which allowed interaction with other
learners.
Michael described a MUSH that had been set up for Biologists and
allowed one to "walk around" the DNA sequence. He held an informal
BOF on MUDs etc.
I would like to see gopher or world wide web being used as a training
tool using something like the Tour of the Internet as the basis. The
new user could browse the information at a variety of levels of depth
and could call out and try various services described. Several sites
have put up new user sections. It wouldn't take too much to move from
"documentation" to "training material". Perhaps some sound and
visuals could be added too - such as very very short messages from
prominent people on using the network.
The discussion then moved on to the training pack. The Newcastle
project is producing a mix and match set of training materials - and
the working group discussed the possibilities. I'd like to see high
quality recordings of sound interviews being made specifically for
training purposes and made available on the network. Carl Malamud
(Internet Talk Radio) seemed quite receptive to the idea. We just
need to come up with some concrete ideas. Some people felt that sound
or radio was very limiting in a training situation. However the idea
is to produce a mix and match set of materials that trainers can pick
from to suit their personal training style and to match the needs of
the particular group they were training. Sound mixed with visuals
could be quite effective and would help to vary the format of the
presentation.
Various people volunteered to work on some of the issues raised and to
report back to the mailing list. The RARE WG and US WG mailing lists
are currently being used for this Training WG.
RARE ISUS: wg-i...@rare.nl
to join, mail to: mailser...@rare.nl
the text: subscribe wg-isus
US-WG: u...@nnsc.nsf.net
to join, mail to: us-wg-requ...@nnsc.nsf.net
Plenary: INTERNIC
=================
The three parties running the Internic (Network Solutions Inc. AT&T
and General Atomics) held a plenary session on April 1st to outline
their plans and to officially launch the InterNIC. Various people
from the parties concerned called in over the network to say their
piece as part of the launch and to underline the distributed nature of
the InterNIC. One of the aims set out in the NIC solicitation was to
use the network for collaboration between the various distributed
parts of the NIC. (See also the section on us-wg for details on the
Internic Information Services.)
Scott Williamson (NSI) described the registration services that they
would offer and the move to delegated Registries. (RIPE NCC already
handles IP address registration for Europe.)
Rick Huber (AT&T) talked about the Directory and Database Services.
They would be putting together the Directory of Directories. They
would have resource description files and would validate them
periodically (say every six months). This information would be made
available via WAIS, archie, ftp and gopher by July '93. There would
be no fees for accessing the information. Information providers could
have one page of information on their resource listed for free. There
would also be the option of paying for a more extended listing.
Plenary: IESG/IAB Nominations
=============================
The results of the votes on the vacant IESG/IAB positions were
announced at the last evening of the conference. On the whole the
results were greeted favourably, although concern was expressed that
WG chairmen of the areas concerned had not been consulted over the
choice of area director and that a candidate's attendance (or
otherwise) at IETFs had not seemed to have been taken into account.
IETF/IESG chair: Phil Gross
Standards AD: Lyman Chapin
Service Applications AD: Dave Crocker
Applications AD: Brewster Kahle
Internet AD: Steve Knowles
Network Management: Marshall
Operations: Scott Bradner
Transport AD: Alison Mankin
Concluding Remarks
==================
The Columbus IETF saw the attendance reach a new maximum and saw the
fourth multicast audio and video transmission across the network of
the plenary sessions and some WG sessions. This time the OARnet team
and the IETF Secretariat handled much of the work for IETF Channel 1
and Channel 2. The idea is to move this facility from "research" to
"production service".
Again a very hectic, intense and productive IETF with overlap of
interest (for me) in the mainstream areas I had wanted to attend and
no time to attend related areas (Mail and Directories Working Group
meetings).
The next IETF will be the first outside of North America. It will be
interesting to see whether the high attendance can be maintained.
Finally, a reminder that these notes are my view of the IETF. They
may not be an accurate view, and certainly do not cover the wide range
of topics discussed at the workshop. It's also five weeks ago now
since the IETF and things have moved on....
Jill Foster (Jill.Fos...@newcastle.ac.uk)
06.05.93
|