Internet Info 1994 March/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso/inet/ietf/isn/isn-minutes-92jul.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 10KB | 232 lines

Editor's Note: Minutes received 7/27

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by John Clement/EDUCOM/CoSN

Minutes of the Internet School Networking Working Group (ISN)

The Agenda had two items:  connectivity models, and development of an
FAQ archive.  A third item was introduced by Scott Williamson:
developing a recommendation on domain naming schemes for K-12 schools
and organizations.

We reviewed connectivity alternatives and growth paths.  The mailing
list for this subtask is [e-mail].  We began by a brief
review of a number of documents (of varying formality and draft status)
on topics related to connectivity for schools.

Newman, Denis, Susan Bernstein and Paul A. Reese.  Local Infrastructures
for School Networking:  Current Models and Prospects.  BBN Report No.
7726, April 1992.  Available in hardcopy from Bank Street School of
Education and by ftp from nysernet.org.

Susan Bernstein presented major findings of this report.  She made it
clear that the report was not itself about connectivity alternatives
themselves, but about the current situation in school networks and
machine- (or LAN-) to-WAN connectivity.  Many schools have LANs, and
many have WANs; but the latter are almost exclusively used for
administrative (not instructional) purposes; and the instructional LANs
are not connected to the available WANs, and indeed often instructional
LANs are dedicated to Individualized Learning Software (ILS) systems,
using proprietary network protocols.  The terminal-host model is almost
entirely what is currently used for school-to-WAN connection.

The paper recommends a possible growth path from the point of individual
dialin connections from a machine to a host resource, a path that does
``..not assume the initial availability of LANs but begin(s) developing
the expertise and the software to support true network connections in
schools with stand-alone computers..''  (p.34).  The path would lead
schools through connections to a remote network, to a leased line to a
local Internet node, and finally to a local Internet server.

Reilly, Rob, and Kurt Lidl.  A National Computer Infrastructure:  The
Light at the End of the Tunnel May be an Oncoming Rain!  Unpublished
manuscript, July 1992.  Available by request from
[e-mail].

Rob Reilly sketched the main points of his paper as emphasizing the need
to deal with both the physical network and the logical one; a synopsis
of connectivity models within one overview structure; and process
suggestions for future steps.

Burns, Pat.  Establishing Connections to the Internet.  Unpublished

                                   1





manuscript, n.d.  (3/92 app.?)  Available by ftp as
models_last_revision.ps from ariel.unm.edu (library directory).

No one was present from CSU's shop to discuss this paper.

Hastings, Eugene.  Connectivity Models for Internet Access.  Version
1.1.  Monday, July 13, 1992.  Unpublished manuscript.  Available by
request from [e-mail].

Gene Hastings' paper begins with the presumption that one is connecting
networks together.  He calls for schools to build school-specific
infrastructures (up to a consortium of school districts) and then
connect in bulk to the Internet.

His models address needs and constraints of connectivity situations in
different situations -- for example, in some areas telephone tariffs are
based on metered but untimed calls.  In others, the near future will
bring ISDN capability -- in the Bell Atlantic market, perhaps for as low
as $40/month.

Pricing models are not yet set; there is a chance for user communities
such as schools to affect these decisions.  However, many of the
connection options are currently being priced as extra-cost luxury items
for small customers, which is exactly the wrong approach.

Discussion then began of the various models and designs presented.
Susan Bernstein pointed out that the model outlined by Reilly and Lidl
was, even in its fullest expression, not yet a ``local Internet server''
model, but relied on a leased-line connection to an external host
machine, itself on the Internet.  For a long-term solution to the
problem of connecting K-12, we have to migrate Internet and other
servers to the school settings.

Brian Lloyd mentioned work he was doing in the Bay Area to connect two
schools, as well as preparing a paper for BARRNET on methods.  He
reported that he was obtaining old PCs and installing them as routers
using PPP. He envisions, he said, a three-phase process:  in phase 1 a
connection to a school is provided, but (the campus or regional -- some
already-connected group) carries the technical and administrative load;
in phase 2, the school learns to manage its own access to the network;
and in phase 3 the school provides a name and file server for a group of
schools.

Gerry White of Applitek mentioned that his company is exploring
providing broadband Ethernet connectivity to schools via installed
cable.  An unspecified number of the nation's school cable plants have
``backchannel'' capability, which will allow interactive uses.  A number
of concerns were expressed with issues such as tuning and management of
broadband over cable, with ghosting and interference and their impact on
packet transmission; but there was consensus that such models were well
worth exploring and noting in an RFC draft.

Eric Hood of NorthWestNet and FARNET K-12 asked that any analysis of

                                   2





models consider costs of network management.

Michael Powell of Pacific Bell mentioned that his company has entered an
agreement with California State University and the California Technology
Project to provide gateways for an Internet connection to every educator
in the state, under the name Knowledge Network.  They are eager to
participate in the process of developing connectivity models.

John Clement offered that there seemed to be enough written, and enough
areas of general agreement between the different documents, that one
could now attempt a draft RFC. He asked for volunteers, and said there
would be a document posted for discussion before IETF 25 in Washington
DC (dates??).  The following individuals volunteered:


Rob Reilly, Lanesboro, MA Schools (first draft synthesizer)
Susan Bernstein (reviewer)
Eugene Hastings, Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center
Ellen Hoffman, Merit Network Inc.
Brian Lloyd and Constance Lloyd, Cameron Park, CA
Michael Powell, Pacific Bell
Gerry White, Applitek


Development of a FAQ (``frequently-asked-questions'') archive on school
connectivity issues.  The mailing list for this subtask is
[e-mail].  It was mentioned that Ed Vielmetti of CICnet has
installed the Kidsnet archives on a WAIS server.  The resource seems
likely to provide useful ``first answers'' for an FAQ file.

John Clement offered to use the cosndisc (Consortium for School
Networking) discussion forum to develop a set of questions.  April
Marine of SRI and Jennifer Sellers of NASA then offered to draft answers
to the questions using the Kidsnet WAIS resource.  It was agreed that a
draft FAQ file could be made available by the time of IETF 25 in
Washington, DC.

Developing a recommendation on domain naming schemes for K-12 schools
and organizations.  A discussion was introduced by Scott Williamson of
ISI. An increasing number of requests are being received for K-12 domain
names, and there is no agreed- upon naming structure.  The prospect of a
very large number of K-12 domains and nodes raises serious concerns.

Discussion points raised:  already existing are names such as xxhs.edu.
Expansion of this model will provide a very flat structure with very
little information, and offer a lot of chances for conflict over names
(there are a large number of George Washington or Martin Luther King,
Jr.  high schools).

Additionally, although elementary schools and high schools are
identified with relative clarity, there is considerable ambiguity in the
middle range (middle schools, intermediate schools, junior high
schools).  Finally, the point was raised that this information is of

                                   3





uncertain value for a naming domain.

Considerable discussion was held on the notion of a geography- based
naming convention within the .us domain.  Ellen Hoffman of Merit
Network, Inc.  offered to prepare a draft document for discussion on
this issue.

The general mailing list for this discussion is [e-mail].
Copies of the papers cited, can be had by asking John Clement
<[e-mail]>.  Reactions and comments are much appreciated.
John C.

Attendees

John Clement             [e-mail]
Daniel Dern              [e-mail]
Sallie Fellows           [e-mail]
Constance Fleenor Lloyd  [e-mail]
Maria Gallagher          [e-mail]
Neil Haller              [e-mail]
Martyne Hallgren         [e-mail]
Eugene Hastings          [e-mail]
Alisa Hata               [e-mail]
Ellen Hoffman            [e-mail]
J. Paul Holbrook         [e-mail]
James Keller             [e-mail]
Hock-Koon Lim            [e-mail]
Brian Lloyd              [e-mail]
Daniel Long              [e-mail]
Kim Long                 [e-mail]
April Marine             [e-mail]
Cindy Mazza
Cyndi Mills              [e-mail]
Marsha Perrott           [e-mail]
Michael Powell           [e-mail]
Robert Reilly            [e-mail]
Joyce K. Reynolds        [e-mail]
Michael Roberts          [e-mail]
Anthony Rutkowski        [e-mail]
Jennifer Sellers         [e-mail]
Gregory Vaudreuil        [e-mail]
Carol Ward               [e-mail]
Moira West               [e-mail]
Evan Wetstone            [e-mail]
Gerard White
Scott Williamson         [e-mail]



                                   4