Re: ISN restart

"avri doria" <avri@esun19.gdc.com> Wed, 17 June 1998 16:24 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:24:50 -0400
Return-Path: owner-isn-wg@pobox.nasa.gov
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA20046 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pobox.nasa.gov (pobox.nasa.gov [128.102.92.11]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA14373; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pobox.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.8.6) id JAA19903 for isn-wg-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gdc.com (gate6.gdc.com [206.97.118.12]) by pobox.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA19898 for <isn-wg@nasa.gov>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from techmail.gdc.com ([172.16.0.56]) by gate6.gdc.com with ESMTP id <32263>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:12:19 -0400
Received: from avra ([192.168.64.126]) by techmail.gdc.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/NCSHUB-1.6) with SMTP id MAA09007; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <00aa01bd9a09$f8da9660$7e40a8c0@avra.gdc.com>
Reply-To: avri doria <avri@esun19.gdc.com>
From: avri doria <avri@esun19.gdc.com>
To: isn-wg@nasa.gov
Cc: April Marine <amarine@atlas.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: ISN restart
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:07:03 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-isn-wg@nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk

Hi,


I too think it is really a good idea to restart this effort, and am
interested in helping in any way i can.

While updating the current documents seems to be a good start, i was also
wondering about the other part of the  charter.  Specifically:

>
>1.  Advocacy.  The ISN Working Group will facilitate dialog between the
>primary and secondary education community and the Internet engineering
>community in order to identify and fulfill the needs of the primary and
>secondary school community.

Given the current push, especially in the US, to get the schools hooked into
the net, what requirements are there for this effort that do not fall out of
the regular IETF efforts?  Are the needs of schools significantly different
from the needs of business and general consumer usage of the internet? I
think they probably are, but I am not sure that we have identified any ways
in which the needs of primary and secondary schools are substantively
different and require specific addressing by the IETF technical WGs.
This is an area I am very intersted in.

I am also intersted in how we could set up procedures to keep the
information available to schools current.  While a static protocol RFC makes
sense in many cases, a static 'how to guide' RFC  can become outdated even
before it is released.

a.