Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/isn/isn-minutes-94mar.txt

Text File | 1994-05-24 | 11KB | 248 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Joyce K. Reynolds/Information Sciences Institute

Minutes of the Internet School Networking Working Group (ISN)


Joyce K. Reynolds and John Clement were acting co-chairs.


Review of Charter, Milestones, Current Documents and Activities

Joyce Reynolds reviewed the charter and summarized milestones for March
and July 1994.  Activities are on time for this and the next IETF.

A new RFC, produced by Jennifer Sellers, is available:  FYI 22, RFC
1578, ``FYI on Questions and Answers -- Answers to Commonly Asked
`Primary and Secondary School Internet User' Questions.''  A new
Internet-Draft, produced by Joan Gargano and David Wasley, is also
available:  ``K-12 Internetworking Guidelines.''


First Status Report on ISN Task

The task is to ``define the information to be included in an on-line
database of educational people involved in networking, recommend a
process for collecting and updating the data, and coordinate with a
provider of directory services to implement the database.''

April Marine reported on activities in this task.  The volunteers
(Sallie Fellows, Sally Laughon, and April Marine) had agreed that this
was a ``white pages'' task; they scouted for resources, and located
Sally Laughon's collection of teacher profiles derived from subscribers
to the ``kidsphere'' mailing list.

A preliminary list of data items for the database was offered for
discussion.  It included:  name, postal address, e-mail address(es),
phone number(s), fax number, title/function, name of school, location of
school, ages of children taught, and subjects taught.

It was suggested to include a field for interests and/or one for
projects in which the educator was involved.

A preliminary list of requirements for the database was also presented:


  a. Collect and maintain data, including periodic reverification.

  b. Provide an easy, automatic method for self-registration.

  c. Provide an easy, automatic method for database registrants to
     update their information.

  d. Provide for authentication and for maintaining privacy of certain
     information.

  e. Provide an easy search interface.


Questions were raised about the feasibility of items (b) and (c).  There
is an RFC out on privacy concerns and NIC operations (Holbrook, P., and
J. Reynolds, Editors, ``Site Security Handbook,'' FYI 8, RFC 1244,
CICNet, ISI, July 1991).  Basic issues relevant to the educators
database are that if you enroll a person, they should know and agree to
it, they should know how to be taken off (if possible), and they should
know how to alter their entry.

It was mentioned that a project to implement a distributed database for
school people using the WHOIS++ protocol is under consideration by CNIDR
and collaborators.  CNIDR will share information on this project on the
isn-wg mailing list as it gets underway.  Sepideh Boroumand, Jill
Hanson, Allan Cargille and Brian Lloyd offered to help by collecting
information on schools for whom they support connectivity.

Next steps discussed were to prepare a write-up of the database
requirements and data elements, and to discuss with CNIDR the collection
of data and the establishment of a prototype database.  It does not seem
likely at this point that a prototype will be available for testing and
discussion by the 30th IETF in July.



Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) Document


Bill Manning presented the draft document that Don Perkins and he had
developed and circulated on the isn-wg mailing list.  It was emphasized
that the document was envisioned as a guide for schools, districts or
other educational network providers to develop their own AUPs, but was
not itself an AUP statement.

A discussion ensued about the need for specific examples of AUPs to be
made available.  It was suggested that the AUP for the CoVis project
(Louis Gomez and Roy Pea, Northwestern University), which includes
considerable explanatory material, be appended to the draft document.
The Armadillo Gopher (port 1170 on riceinfogopher.rice.edu) contains a
number of AUPs; it was suggested that pointers to school and educational
network provider AUPs be included in the document.  It was mentioned
that legal counsel for school districts often review proposed AUPs, so
these documents will almost invariably be customized.

It was mentioned that the question of teaching the users about the AUP
often comes up.  Bill Manning offered to revise the draft document to
add pointers to model AUPs, to include the CoVis AUP as an example in an
appendix, and to include information about user training.  The working
group accepted the document as revised as an Internet-Draft.  [Note:
This Internet-Draft was posted to the Internet-Drafts repositories on 5
April as draft-ietf-isn-aup-00.txt.]


Second Status Report on ISN Task


The task is to ``write a set of two documents, one aimed at connection
providers and the other aimed at educational sites, providing guidelines
for bringing educational sites on-line.  Included will be a broad
definition of connection providers.''

Avri Doria presented an outline of an educational user document.  The
volunteers (Ann Cooper, Avri Doria, and Dave Livingston) suggested that
the document would take the form of an annotated bibliography of about
ten pages in length, with short entries for each item.  The outline
includes:


   o What is the Internet?
   o What types of services are available to educators?
   o What types of physical connections are available?
   o Where would one go to get connected?
   o What is involved in getting hooked up?
   o What are school personnel responsibilities?
   o What forms of training and support are needed?
   o What issues of ``netiquette'' are involved?
   o Glossary.
   o Bibliography.
   o Useful addresses and phone numbers.


It was pointed out that the document outlined would inevitably be larger
than ten pages; there was some uncertainty expressed about whether the
proposed format would work.  Avri Doria requested more volunteers to
help identify gaps in the outline, to review the document, and to
identify resources to cite in the document.  Sepideh Boroumand, Jill
Hanson, Brian Lloyd and April Marine volunteered.  It was agreed that
the outline would be posted to the list and developed further.  It will
be discussed at the 30th IETF in Toronto.

A discussion ensued on the need for a document oriented toward network
service providers.  It was suggested that service provider
representatives should volunteer to work on the document.  The group
agreed to postpone discussion of a document oriented to service
providers for the next IETF.

Gene Hastings presented a document authored by himself and Bob Carlitz,
``Stages of Internet Connectivity for School Networking.''  The group
agreed that the document should be put on-line as an Internet-Draft.
Gene Hastings and Joyce Reynolds will work on getting author approval,
etc., and to proceed to publish this document as an Internet-Draft.  The
question was raised about making documents available via fax; Susan
Calcari said the InterNIC is considering establishing a fax-based
distribution system.


Discussion of the Gargano-Wasley Internet-Draft

Questions raised included:


   o Is the document too closely oriented toward system administrators?

     It was suggested that the target audience for this document is
     really educational administrators, with the document aiming to
     explain in clear, predominantly nontechnical language what
     connectivity options they have.  It was emphasized that some thirty
     California educators have examined the draft prior to its posting,
     and they helped determine the technical level.

   o Is there overlap between the Gargano-Wasley (G-W) draft and the
     Carlitz-Hastings (C-H) draft?

     It was suggested that the documents complemented each other:  the
     C-H draft goes into greater technical depth, while the G-W draft
     document focuses more closely on the internal requirements of
     schools.


Other issues were briefly discussed.  It was noted to the authors of the
G-W document that Frame Relay was not mentioned in the Internet-Draft.
The draft will be revised and reissued by David Wasley to include a
discussion of Frame Relay.  The G-W document will not include training
and support information; it was suggested that those issues be discussed
in another document.

It was agreed by the working group that the G-W document would be
submitted for FYI RFC publication.


Attendees

Janice Abrahams          [e-mail]
Sepideh Boroumand        [e-mail]
Gregg Brekke             [e-mail]
Lloyd Brodsky            [e-mail]
J. Nevil Brownlee        [e-mail]
Susan Calcari            [e-mail]
C. Allan Cargille        [e-mail]
A. Lyman Chapin          [e-mail]
Jodi-Ann Chu             [e-mail]
Paul Ciarfella           [e-mail]
John Clement             [e-mail]
David Conrad             [e-mail]
Ann Cooper               [e-mail]
Naomi Courter            [e-mail]
David Crowe              [e-mail]
Roger Cyganer            [e-mail]
Peter DiCamillo          [e-mail]
Avri Doria
Richard Everman          [e-mail]
Louis Fernandez          [e-mail]
Anders Gillner           [e-mail]
Jill Hanson              [e-mail]
Eugene Hastings          [e-mail]
Alisa Hata               [e-mail]
John Houlker             [e-mail]
Jinho Hur                [e-mail]
Lenore Jackson           [e-mail]
Bent Jensen              [e-mail]
John Klensin             [e-mail]
Frank Liu                [e-mail]
Brian Lloyd              [e-mail]
Carl Madison             [e-mail]
Dawn Mann                [e-mail]
Bill Manning             [e-mail]
April Marine             [e-mail]
Daniel McDonald          [e-mail]
Donald Pace              [e-mail].
Kurt Parent              [e-mail]
Marsha Perrott           [e-mail]
Joyce K. Reynolds        [e-mail]
Jane Smith               [e-mail]
Patricia Smith           [e-mail]
Barbara Sterling         [e-mail]
Ruediger Volk            [e-mail]
Phil Wintering           [e-mail]
Philip Wood              [e-mail]