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 janice@cnidr.org Sepideh Boroumand sepideh@jacks.gsfc.nasa.gov Gregg Brekke gbrekke@mr.net Lloyd Brodsky lbrodsky@rocksolid.com J. Nevil Brownlee nevil@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz Susan Calcari susanc@internic.net C. Allan Cargille allan.cargille@cs.wisc.edu A. Lyman Chapin lyman@bbn.com Jodi-Ann Chu jodi@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu Paul Ciarfella ciarfella@took.lkg.dec.com John Clement jclement@nsf.gov David Conrad davidc@iij.ad.jp Ann Cooper cooper@isi.edu Naomi Courter naomi@concert.net David Crowe crowed@osshe.edu Roger Cyganer cygander@telebit.comm Peter DiCamillo Peter_DiCamillo@brown.edu Avri Doria Richard Everman reverman@ka.reg.uci.edu Louis Fernandez lff@sequent.com Anders Gillner awg@sunet.se Jill Hanson jhanson@wsipc.wednet.edu Eugene Hastings hastings@psc.edu Alisa Hata hata@cac.washington.edu John Houlker j.houlker@waikato.ac.nz Jinho Hur jhhur@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr Lenore Jackson jackson@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov Bent Jensen bent@cisco.com John Klensin Klensin@infoods.unu.edu Frank Liu fcliu@pacbell.com Brian Lloyd brian@lloyd.com Carl Madison carl@zeus.st.3com.com Dawn Mann dawn@infoods.unu.edu Bill Manning bmanning@rice.edu April Marine april@atlas.arc.nasa.gov Daniel McDonald danmcd@itd.nrl.navy.mil Donald Pace pace@cntfl.com. Kurt Parent kurt@nwnet.net Marsha Perrott perrott@prep.net Joyce K. Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu Jane Smith Jane.Smith@cnidr.org Patricia Smith psmith@merit.edu Barbara Sterling bjs@mcdata.com Ruediger Volk rv@informatik.uni-dortmund.de Phil Wintering pvw@americast.com Philip Wood cpw@lanl.gov