doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc585.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc585.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f21308e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc585.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         D. Crocker
+Request for Comments: 585                                       UCLA-NMC
+Category: Users                                                N. Neigus
+NIC: 18259                                                       BBN-NET
+                                                              J. Feinler
+                                                                 SRI-ARC
+                                                                J. Iseli
+                                                               MITRE-TIP
+                                                                6-Nov-73
+
+
+              Arpanet Users Interest Working Group Meeting
+
+   A new group, the Arpanet Users Interest Working Group (USING) is the
+   outgrowth of a meeting held in Boston on May 22-23, 1973.  The
+   meeting, cochaired by Dave Crocker, UCLA-NMC, and Nancy Neigus, BBN,
+   followed BBN's Resource Sharing Workshop.
+
+PURPOSE
+
+   The USING meeting was seen by the members as a forum for Network
+   Users to air complaints, exchange information, voice desires, and
+   present concrete proposals for the design and implementation of
+   user-oriented Network capabilities.
+
+   The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
+   to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
+   interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
+   ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
+   facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
+   wish to use.
+
+   Neigus, Crocker, and Iseli of MITRE were selected to define the
+   objectives and goals of USING in more detail, and they will present
+   their discussion in a later publication.
+
+ATTENDEES
+
+      Dave Crocker, UCLA-NMC, Co-Chairperson
+      Nancy Neigus, BBN, Co-Chairperson
+      Ken Bowles, UCSD-CC
+      Frank Brignoli, NSRDC
+      Jim Calvin, CASE-10
+      Jake Feinler, NIC
+      Wayne Hathaway, NASA-AMES
+      Jean Iseli, MITRE
+      Mike Kudlick, NIC
+      Mike Padlipsky, MIT-MULTICS
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 1]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+      Lee Richardson, USC-ISI
+      Ron Stoughton, UCSB
+      Jim White, NIC
+      Steve Wolf, UCLA-CCN
+      Joe Wyatt, Harvard
+
+CATEGORIES OF CONCERN
+
+   The meeting began by attempting to create a relatively complete list
+   of topics directly relevant to users.  The intention was to then
+   discuss some of these categories in detail.  The categories of
+   concern to users are listed here along with a brief outline of the
+   discussion and recommendations associated with each category.  Not
+   all topics were discussed fully due to time limitations.  It was
+   acknowledged that some of the recommendations were quite extensive,
+   but that they should be mentioned even though their implementation
+   would be far off.
+
+   1. Online and Offline Documentation, Information Sharing, and
+      Consulting
+
+      a. There is a general need to upgrade the quality, technical
+         accuracy, timeliness, dissemination, and format of both online
+         and offline documentation.
+
+      b. Documentation should avoid "buzz" words (jargon), and should
+         follow easily understood syntax conventions, abbreviation
+         standards, reference citation rules, etc.  However, there
+         probably cannot be a standard format for writing documentation.
+
+      c. Offline documentation should be well indexed, should contain a
+         good table-of-contents, and should be written in an easily
+         browsable format.  Online documentation should be presented in
+         a browse mode with well-labeled categories of information as
+         well as a keyword search capability.
+
+      d. Documentation should be identified with date/author/version
+         information, particularly in large online documents, so that it
+         is easier to keep the most current version of a document and to
+         query the author, in the event of problems with the
+         documentation.
+
+      e. Network news needs to be gathered and intelligently distributed
+         to users (Network PR).
+
+      f. Users need several levels and styles of access to
+         documentation, whether online or offline, based upon their
+         experience, interests, and preferences.
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 2]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+      g. Each server site should also provide some degree of information
+         variety in online "help" mechanisms, tailored to fit the needs
+         and experience of different user types.
+
+         In addition, entering "Help" from the EXEC level of a system
+         should direct a user to ALL procedural-type information.
+
+      h. New users should be carefully introduced to the Network by way
+         of a New Users Packet (NUP).  Since the MITRE-TIP group is the
+         official contact for new users, they should design such a
+         packet and incorporate suggestions from USING.
+
+         This packet should eventually contain, among other things:
+
+            a definition of, and introduction to the Network
+
+            a list of sites
+
+            step-by-step scenarios for accessing functional documents an
+            related online items
+
+            a definition of who can get on the Network
+
+            some quick-reference charts showing a list of Network
+            services available to new users
+
+            and an introduction to Network groups, including USING, as
+            well as the names of Network consultants, assistants, and
+            the like.
+
+      i. Information-accessing mechanisms should be provided for users,
+         including interactive tutorials, user scenarios, and other
+         training mechanisms.
+
+      j. A Network-wide "who, what, where and when" information system
+         should be implemented. (This was nicknamed the Network Yellow
+         Pages.)  Discussion of support for such a system focused on
+         obtaining some form of central funding.
+
+      k. The concept of `Regional Agents' for collecting information for
+         the Resource Notebook was discussed.
+
+         Several felt that what was really needed was a `rebirth' of the
+         original concept of Technical Liaison as the person who
+         provides information to the NIC and technical assistance to
+         users.
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 3]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+         There was concern voiced about the number of people collecting
+         information and the redundancy of the requests received by
+         sites.
+
+         There was also concern about what incentives there are (or
+         should be or can be) for Liaisons to perform their tasks
+         adequately by providing truly up-to-date and complete
+         information (carrot vs. stick).
+
+      l. Server Sites should provide a variety of consulting services to
+         supplement `help' and general information services.
+         Consultants could represent the whole Network, a group of
+         sites, a single site, general areas such as software, or
+         specific applications processes.  This could fit into the
+         workings of the Network Servers Group.
+
+   2. Standardization for the User
+
+      a. If they so desire, users should only have to learn one
+         Executive (command) language, rather than 20.  Rather than have
+         every site change its interface to the user, it was suggested
+         that there be a Network Common Command Language Protocol which
+         is translated to/from the host's own Executive command
+         language.
+
+         As with FTP and RJE, a human user should be able to type in CCL
+         Protocol directly, though many sites may want to allow a local
+         user to type in their local Executive language, and then they
+         will translate it into CCLP, for the foreign host.
+
+         Any Network Common Command Language should be compatible with
+         batch systems as well as with interactive systems, and should
+         provide an effective means for batch job submission and
+         control.
+
+         Bowles, Hathaway, and Stoughton volunteered to outline specs
+         for Network command language that would be compatible with
+         ideas suggested by Padlipsky and discussed at the meeting.
+
+      b. One of the functions to included in a Common Command Language
+         is a simple editor, which Padlipsky has outlined.  The editor
+         should be easy for users to learn as well as for servers to
+         implement or interface to their own editors.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 4]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+   3. Status/Measurement of Site Performance
+
+      a. A variety of performance measures, for the individual sites,
+         needs to be derived, acquired, maintained, and made available
+         to users.
+
+         This could include some attempt to measure average "response
+         time", relative costs (relative to type of task, that is),
+         availability/reliability, etc.
+
+      b. Mechanisms are needed for software certification and for
+         measuring and verifying the accuracy and/or reliability of
+         systems, hardware, protocols, applications software, etc.
+
+   4. User Feedback Mechanisms
+
+      a. There is a need for a uniform Network gripe/suggestion
+         mechanism.  This should cover several types of gripes,
+         including program bugs and service complaints.
+
+      b. Each user registering a complaint deserves immediate
+         acknowledgement and some indication of what, if any, action
+         will be taken.
+
+      c. The NIC should set up Network ident groups for Principal
+         Investigators, Liaisons, Station Agents, Accounts
+         Administrators, Consultants, etc., so that users can easily
+         direct their comments, inquiries and mail to these groups.
+
+      d. A Network Servers Group should be started, to coordinate the
+         activities (to the extent possible) of the servers (a Server's
+         Cartel?).  It would also provide a focus for user complaints
+         and suggestions.
+
+         (The group was originally dubbed the "Tobacco Institute".  The
+         Tobacco Institute acts as a representative for the disparate
+         Tobacco companies, and attempts to convince the public that
+         smoking is good for them.)
+
+         The point of the Servers Group -- rather than trying to
+         convince the Network public that servers are good for them --
+         would be for servers to help each other with common tasks (such
+         as documentation) that are too big for each to handle alone.
+
+            This eventually works in the users interest, because the
+            servers (in the Network free-market economy) are dependent
+            upon the users for their livelihood.
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 5]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+         There should be cooperation between the Server Group and USING,
+         but the groups would NOT be comprised of the same people.  They
+         are on opposite sides of the product.
+
+      e. Station Agents should supply users with information of a
+         clerical nature such as names, phone numbers, titles,
+         documentations, etc.  To be able to do this, the Agents must
+         first HAVE this information.
+
+   5. Messages to Users
+
+      a. Messages to users, such as error messages or diagnostics,
+         should be simple, clear, and meaningful to users.
+
+      b. The user should have the ability to control notifications given
+         to him, by being able to queue messages or refuse them.
+
+      c. Users should be able to suppress diagnostics or to specify
+         abbreviated or expanded versions.
+
+   6. Tailoring of Resources for Users
+
+      a. Interfaces to users should support different levels of user
+         proficiency, without being a burden to the more proficient
+         user.
+
+         That is, a new user needs more prompting, etc.  A more
+         experienced user does not need and DOES NOT WANT such
+         prompting.  So the capabilities of the interface, which are not
+         needed by a specific user, should be transparent.
+
+      b. A method for work flow management that permits a user to set up
+         a sequence of computer tasks that are contingent upon one
+         another is needed.  The user should be able to describe this
+         sequence interactively and then be able to detach and continue
+         with other work while the sequence of tasks is being carried
+         out.
+
+   7. Personal Information Management System
+
+      a. Users need a system for managing all types of machine-based
+         contacts such as mail, links, journal items, etc.
+
+         Such a system should `log' what has been received and allow the
+         user to keep a copy, if desired.
+
+         It should also provide the user with options for organizing his
+         personal information.
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 6]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+      b. A personal `calendar' or reminder system would be handy,
+         especially if it allowed one to look ahead to coming events as
+         well as to check events for the current day or week.
+
+      c. A `return to sender' feature is needed in the Network-wide mail
+         address system.
+
+      d. (Discussion of the current work on the Mail Protocol indicated
+         that some of these ideas are already being considered)
+
+   8. Uniform Accounting Procedures and Online Status of Accounts
+
+      a. This topic was covered in detail by sections of the Resource
+         Sharing Workshop.  It is mentioned here only because it is a
+         problem of real concern to users.
+
+   9. Trial Usage and Browsing
+
+      a. Ideally, users should be allowed some `free' sampling of
+         systems and features available at each site.  Practically, this
+         presents problems of space allocation, accounting, consulting,
+         etc.  Although none of these problems are easy to solve
+         equitably, an attempt should still be made to provide some free
+         usage to everyone.
+      b. Several types of trial usage should be considered, such as for
+         those who will make an immediate commitment and those who wish
+         merely to sample, without making any commitment.
+
+   10.  Prelogon Facilities
+
+      a. Some facilities should be available as prelogon facilities, so
+         that any user can access them whether or not he has an account,
+         directory, etc., at a given site.  Some sites will not be able
+         to support many of these functions, so a required set must be
+         kept to a minimum.
+
+   11.  Remote User Facilitation
+
+      a. Users not only need help with actual use of systems from a
+         remote site, but they also need facilitation of administrative
+         tasks.  Station Agents should be able to handle most of these
+         problems or transfer the user to the proper person.  System
+         access requirements, account and billing problems, and document
+         acquisition need particular attention.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 7]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+      b. There should be a simple mechanism for users to acquire/update
+         information in functional documents such as the Resource Note-
+         book and in files such as identification files.  Publications
+         or files of this sort should combine the collective input of
+         all the users.
+
+   12.  Transportability of Resources and Information
+
+      a. Users should be able to easily transfer information, such as
+         files, memos, mail, online documentation, (programs?!?) etc.,
+         from one site to another.
+
+   13.  Network Utilities
+
+      a. Should distributed data banks and similar features be
+         considered Network utilities that can be used by all?
+
+         The idea of "Network Utilities" was recognized as an
+         interesting one by the group, but there was little agreement as
+         to what constitutes Network utilities or how they should be
+         supported.
+
+CURRENT PLANS
+
+   1. Neigus, Crocker, and Iseli will draft the scope, objectives,
+      goals, and priorities of USING and will submit their
+      recommendations for approval by the members.
+
+   2. MITRE will design a New User's Packet incorporating ideas from
+      USING.
+
+   3. Bowles, Hathaway, and Stoughton will write preliminary specs for a
+      Network Common Command Language Protocol.  All members should
+      suggest a list of commands for consideration.
+
+   4. Padlipsky will produce specifications for a simple, standard
+      editor (NETED) which could easily be implemented by server hosts.
+
+   5. A general Users Group (NIC ident = USERS) will be formed, to allow
+      any interested person to monitor user-oriented activities,
+      especially those of USING.  Anyone interested in being in USERS
+      should contact Dave Crocker (DHC).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 8]
+
+RFC 585               USING Working Group Meeting          November 1973
+
+
+   6. Activities of the group will be reported in the ARPAnet News, and
+      a user's forum column will be made available for user's comments.
+
+   7. The group will meet again in the Fall of 1973 at the Network
+      Information Center in Menlo Park, California.
+
+
+          [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+              [ into the online RFC archives by Via Genie 3/00 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker, et al.                  Users                          [Page 9]
+