IETF Report Fri, 07 May 1993 17:34 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10687; 7 May 93 13:34 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10683; 7 May 93 13:34 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18371; 7 May 93 13:34 EDT
Via:; Fri, 7 May 1993 14:09:58 +0100
Received: from [+JANET.000001500100/FTP.MAIL] by; Fri, 7 May 1993 13:58:36 +0100
Received: from by id <> (5.65cVUW/NCL-CMA.1.35 for <>) with SMTP; Fri, 7 May 1993 13:58:12 +0100
Date: Fri, 07 May 93 13:57:01 BST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: IETF Report
Message-Id: <>

 Finally - my report on the Internet Engineering Task Force meeting.
 The next IETF is in Amsterdam in July.

 Skip through (if you wish) to the bits on URNs, NIR, WHOIS++ etc etc

 I am sure that I won't have managed to keep it completely accurate -
 but it should serve to give people on this list a flavour of what's
 going on in the NIR world.  Which after all is the purpose of this
 list: short updates on what's going on in the various NIR-type WGs.

 -- Jill

 IETF - Columbus: Mar 29-Apr 2, 1993
 Trip Report:
 Jill Foster - Newcastle University, UK
 Chairman: RARE Information Services and User Support Working Group

 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
 This report will be stored on the UK Mailbase Server.  To retrieve a
 copy, email to with the following command in
 the body of the message:
      send wg-isus ietf.03.93

 Alternatively use anonymous ftp to:

 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.


 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


 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      |

 This is equivalent to giving everyone on the planet their own network

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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:
    To join, mail to:
       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

    mailing list:
    mail archives:         /pub/archive/wnils
      or gopher:  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

 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

 Mailing list for this group:
 To join, mail to:      

 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

      in the file:


      The  report  includes  the various ISUS subgroups, their progress
      and mailing lists.

      Mailing list of ISUS:

      To join, mail to:

      the command (in the text of the message):

      subscribe  wg-isus  firstname lastname

      (substituting your own first and last name) 


 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
            to join, mail to:
            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)

   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
   o    Common electronic identity
        Reference Desk will answer this mailbox and phone

 Individual Contact Information
   o    Information services
   o    Directory and Database Services
   o    Registration Services

 Registration Services will run WHOIS and DNS and will have T1 link.

 There were questions raised re performance of machines chosen for

 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: - suggestions for information to put up  - 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

      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-request@XYLOGICS.COM

      It  was  suggested  that  people who had to answer user questions
      should send in their own "top 5" frequently  asked  questions  to

 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:
        to join, mail to:

 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
        2.  get /pub/nisi/nic_template
        3.  edit the template and put in your NIC's information
        4.  mail the completed template to
            with 'add' in the subject field 
            if you want more information
             send to the same address with "help" in subject field


      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

      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:
      To join, mail to:


      Mailing list:
      To join, mail to:

 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,

 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

 file name:  pub/nir/

 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:
    To join, mail to:
    The text:          subscribe nir <your firstname> <your lastname>
       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 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,

 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

 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

 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.

    to join, mail to:
    the text:          subscribe wg-isus <your firstname> <your lastname>

    to join, mail to:

 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

 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         (