InfoMagic Standards 1994 January/InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso/inet/ietf/isn/92mar.min

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 9KB | 214 lines

This is only a rough draft - Megan 04/10/92

23rd IETF meeting -- San Diego, CA
Working Group on Internet School Networking
March 17, 1992    1:30 -- 3:30 p.m.

Co-Chairs: Art St.George (present),
[e-mail]; Connie Stout,
[e-mail]; John Clement (present),
[e-mail]
General mailing list for ISN-WG: [e-mail]

A list of those attending the session is appended to this
document.

Minutes

Specific discussion around the major agenda topics is
summarized below in sections 1) and 2).  A number of
general issues were addressed during the meeting, and are
summarized briefly first.

Joyce Reynolds <[e-mail]> mentioned that there is
considerable interest in international circles, especially in
Europe, in what this working group is doing, and that
products from the WG will be scrutinized attentively
overseas.

Among the more general issues (exceeding technical
boundaries) raised at least briefly during the session were:
the need to provide persuasive arguments for educators to
use with school administrators, to support both initial access
and expansion of networking capabilities; the continuing
need for postsecondary institutions to remain involved in
helping schools with connectivity, whether as sources of
guest accounts, for technical expertise and support where
other mechanisms are not yet in place, or as sources of
collaboration on connectivity or content problems.

The issue of having the ISN-WG contribute to providing
technical consulting capabilities to K-12 groups and
institutions was discussed briefly.  Although no definite
resolution was offered, after the meeting it was suggested
that a roster of persons willing to respond to technical
questions might be prepared and offered as part of the FAQ
resource (cf. item 2) below), with the possibility that these
individuals might provide further technical consultation.
One condition of listing in the roster would be that good
questions to roster members would be added by them to the
FAQ list.

Denis Newman <[e-mail]> offered that there are
many more (both local- and wid-area) networks in place in
schools for administrative uses than there are instructional-
use networks.   He  stipulated that, if administrative
networks can be linked into the Internet -- as FIRN is in
Florida -- overall connectivity can be substantially advanced.
Denis suggested that the working group examine the issues
involved in extending administrative LANs and WANs for
instructional use; in particular, the group might consider
addressing security questions, and look at the reality of risks
entailed in carrying administrative and instructional traffic
over the same networks, especially ways to minimize the
risk of unauthorized access.

1)  Review of connectivity alternatives and growth paths.
Mailing list for this discussion: [e-mail]

A draft document prepared by Pat Burns and Ed Zachmann
of Colorado State University (available on connect archives
in Postscript format, or contact Art St.George for fax) was
distributed to attendees, and served as a basis for extensive
discussion during the meeting.

John Clement presented a networking growth path from the
viewpoint of educator practices.  Ensuing discussion pointed
out that the Burns and Zachmann paper lacked an initial
connection model, what might be called Level 0 (the present
paper begins with Level 1).

Burns and Zachmann's Level 1 connectivity models (cf.
especially Figures 3a and 3b) led to a consensus that both
figures and their explanatory text needed relatively minor
but significant revisions.

Extensive discussion of the need for continued connection
capability for the existing base of computers in schools (often
machines of reduced capacity) led to an expressed consensus
that such capability should be maintained in the near future
(under Level 0 connection options), but should be eliminated
over time as more advanced connection levels predominate.
The minimum hardware capability for full Internet access to
be supported would be Apple Macintosh machines or MS-
DOS machines running Windows.

Joe Blackmon <[e-mail]> summarized his
experiences in putting together full (56kbps) Internet
connections for finalist schools in the SuperQuest
competition at lowest possible costs, and offered to share a
document he is preparing for SuperQuest on the subject.

Discussion of Levels 2-4 (Figures 4-6 of Burns and Zachmann
paper) connection models was relatively brief.  There
seemed to be general agreement that, on first reaction (most
attendants were seeing the paper for the first time at the
session), the models were acceptable with relatively minor
corrections, although considerable extension and
clarification were requested (see below).  One point made
was that the models as presented in the paper were
overspecified with regard to their technical components, for
the level of generality needed for a paper on connectivity
alternatives.  At the very least, mention should be made of
other technical alternatives.

[This was in no way presented as a criticism of the Burns and
Zachmann paper, since they offered a starting point and it
was appropriate to list a complete technical implementation
so as to estimate costs.  But perhaps it could be presented as
one example.]

Among the points raised that implied expanding the
descriptions of the models:

o     guidance on the boundaries of application of each
model:  when each becomes inappropriate in given school
contexts.  For example, model 1 might apply to 3-8 machines
in a school, and would not work for more than eight
machines.

o     specification of what kinds of Internet capabilities are
available for each model:  i.e., model 1 offers telnet (remote
login) via an interface menu item, but no direct telnet
capability, and would allow access to WAIS via Simple
WAIS but not the installation of WAIS client software, etc.

o     more complete specification of what is required at the
Internet node/connection point for each model;

o     cost estimates for moving from one model to the next,
and stipulation of what equipment would be no longer
needed and could be used elsewhere;

o     specification of personnel, time and training
requirements for installation, support (including time for
administration and security protection), and maintenance.

Jeff Hayward ([e-mail]--ART I'M NOT SURE
THIS ADDRESS IS RIGHT, DOING IT FROM MEMORY
AND WHOIS IS NO HELP..) agreed to lead an effort to
respecify the models on the basis of the Burns and
Zachmann paper and its discussion, and to amplify their
written description, and to prepare a draft before the end of
the IETF meeting if possible.

It was agreed that a revised draft document would be made
available on <[e-mail]>, and that it would
be revised once more from feedback on the list.  A twice-
iterated draft might be available in advance of the Twenty-
Fourth IETF, in Boston in July.

2)  Development of an FAQ ("frequently-asked-questions)
archive on school connectivity issues.  A new mailing list
will be formed for this issue

Discussion initially focused on identifying sources of
information and materials from which a set of FAQs and
candidate answers might be developed.  KIDSNET and
EDTECH lists were mentioned, and there are many others.
A number of attendees offered to help round up relevant
materials:

Gene Hastings <hastings@psc..edu>
Peter Deutsch  <ART, DO YOU HAVE HIS EMAIL
ADDRESS?>
Rob Reilly <[e-mail]>

Art St. George and John Clement offered to assemble the
materials located into a preliminary archive.

Volunteers were solicited to edit the archive and
review/revise answers to the questions.  The following were
dragooned into volunteering:

Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>
Joe Blackmon <[e-mail]>
Tracy LaQuey <CURRENT EMAIL, PLEASE?>
Michael Marcinkevicz <[e-mail]>

John Clement will also ask Al Rogers of FrEdMail to
volunteer or suggest one of the FrEdMail sysops to
volunteer.

By the next IETF meeting, it was agreed that a preliminary
FAQ archive would have received an editing pass and
would be available for examination and revision.

The following preliminary set of categories is offered for
consideration for the FAQ list:

o     why should K-12 educators and schools connect to the
Internet?
o     modes of access
o     costs
o     support issues, including maintenance, access rules,
security
o     sources of information
o     troubleshooting
o     glossary of essential terms
o     technical specifications
o     technical consultants roster:  people willing to respond
to questions, or possibly provide further consultation