1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc504.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc504.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3821e3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc504.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                     Bob Thomas
+RFC # 504                                                 BBN
+NIC # 16155                                               April 30, 1973
+
+
+                         Workshop Announcement
+
+Title: Automated Resource Sharing on the ARPANET
+
+Date:  Monday May 21, 1973
+
+Time:  9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
+
+Place: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
+
+Hosts: TENEX and TIP Groups at BBN
+
+
+Theme:
+-----
+
+This workshop will focus on various aspects of the question:
+
+    What steps can be taken to automate access to the distributed
+    resources on the ARPANET?
+
+In particular, how can we move from where we are today toward an
+environment which facilitates resource sharing by moving the burden of
+dealing with the network from the human user to processes which act on
+his behalf?  Additionally, operating systems themselves perform various
+operations not directly initiated by human users which could better be
+performed with the availability of resources on other systems (e.g.
+file system backup); how can we move toward an environment which
+facilitates such system-system cooperation?
+
+
+Objectives of Workshop:
+----------------------
+
+1.  To identify and clarify the issues raised by automated resource
+    sharing.
+    What are the obstacles preventing more widespread resource sharing
+    on the ARPANET?  Are they technical, political, administrative in
+    nature?  Is it that there are few resources worth sharing (we don't
+    think so)?  Is automated sharing a bad idea (We don't think so)?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas                                                          [Page 1]
+
+RFC 504                  Workshop Announcement                April 1973
+
+
+2.  To identify resources at various network sites appropriate for
+    automated sharing; and to identify the need for resources which
+    don't but should exist.
+
+3.  To formulate a series of experiments for the purpose of evaluating
+    relative merits and disadvantages of different approaches to
+    automating resource sharing.
+    The intent of such experimentation is to gain experience through
+    construction and use of prototype systems which support automated
+    sharing.
+
+Format of Workshop:
+------------------
+
+Morning:
+
+In order to get the workshop "up to speed", each participant will be
+expected to give a brief presentation of relevant work he (his site) is
+currently engaged in, is planning to do, or to identify and discuss
+issues he feels are relevant to the subject.  Time will be allowed for
+brief discussion after each presentation.
+
+Afternoon:
+
+General discussion of the issues raised during the morning session.
+Possible subjects for discussion include (but need not be limited to):
+
+1.  Identification of possible multi-site "services".
+    Intersite mail, terminal linking, status information are some
+    examples - what are others?
+
+2.  Identification of resources appropriate for remote utilization.
+    File systems, compilers, on-line query systems, manuscript
+    preparation systems are some examples - what are others?
+
+3.  Access to remote resources.
+    Possibility of access paths other than the standard logger port.  To
+    what extent (if at all) can the access paths to a variety of
+    different resources be standardized?  How can resources which may
+    move from Host to Host or may be available on several Hosts be
+    dynamically located and selected for use?  The need for
+    (desirability of) a "broadcast ICP".
+
+4.  Problems of accounting for resource utilization.
+    Some form of network wide accounting would be a great convenience.
+    For example, it would be nice if a user could use the same account
+    at many (all?) sites.  What are the problems (if any) preventing
+    this?
+
+
+
+Thomas                                                          [Page 2]
+
+RFC 504                  Workshop Announcement                April 1973
+
+
+5.  Problems of security and access control.
+    Authentication of users/processes attempting to use resources.  As
+    with network wide accounts, the ability to use the same name and
+    password at all sites would be convenient.  How can a user's
+    password and other sensitive data be protected in such an
+    environment?
+    The notion of a third party password validation and user
+    authentication service.
+
+6.  Approaches to automating resource sharing.
+    It is possible without difficulty to identify several which on the
+    surface appear to be different:
+
+    a.  Multi-site executive programs which make resources accessible to
+        the user at the command language level; e.g.  the inter-site,
+        user-user interaction and file maintenance activity supported by
+        the RSEXEC.
+    b.  A programming language environment designed to facilitate
+        resource sharing; e.g. LISP is a machine independent language -
+        one could imagine a multi-computer LISP system which supported
+        automated resource sharing.
+    c.  The "collect a resource" approach - identify an Editor here,
+        file storage service there, a compiler somewhere else, etc; and
+        build a "workshop" environment which provides convenient access
+        to these resources.
+
+    What are the relative merits and disadvantages of these approaches?
+    What aspects do these approaches have in common?  Is it possible to
+    identify a common base capable of supporting them all?
+
+7.  Protocols to support automated resource sharing.
+    It would be inappropriate to attempt to generate a detailed protocol
+    specification at this workshop. However, it is appropriate to
+    discuss the kinds of activity a protocol should support. Existing
+    protocols (excepting Host-Host protocol and possibly, the new TELNET
+    protocol) appear to be oriented toward human users. Automated
+    resource sharing suggests processes acting on behalf of human users
+    to interface to remote resources; this in turn suggests that the
+    protocols should be highly process oriented. For example, because
+    there should be minimal human intervention in error recovery, the
+    protocols should be extremely robust; e.g., include well specified
+    time outs, etc.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas                                                          [Page 3]
+
+RFC 504                  Workshop Announcement                April 1973
+
+
+Arrangements:
+------------
+
+If you are planning to attend the workshop, please notify Bob Thomas at
+BBN (send net mail to BTHOMAS@BBN, telephone (617) 491-1850, x483).  If
+you would like us to make motel reservations for you (at the homestead
+Inn at Fresh Pond) call Mrs Terry Bernier at BBN (x545).
+
+It is possible that a single day will prove to be insufficient for this
+workshop.  If that is the consensus of the attendees, the workshop will
+continue through Tuesday May 22.
+
+Position papers, memos, notes, etc. prepared by participants in advance
+of the workshop will help contribute to the success of the workshop and
+are requested.  All such papers received before May 11 will be
+distributed, in advance, to workshop attendees.
+
+The following questions may be helpful in focusing your thinking:
+
+- What resources would your site be willing to make available for use in
+  automated resource sharing experiments?
+- Under what conditions would your site be willing or able to
+  participate in such experiments?
+- What administrative and/or technical considerations would prevent your
+  site from entering into a network wide resource sharing agreement?
+- If you employ accounting Procedures that require cost recovery, how,
+  if at all, should they be modified to work in a network resource
+  sharing environment?
+
+
+Reading List:
+------------
+
+We are aware of little that has been written on the subject of automated
+resource sharing.  However, the following items are relevant (at least
+marginally) to the workshop.  Please inform us of others of which you
+are aware.
+
+1.  ARPANET NEWS, Issue 2, Report on COMPCON 73 "Birds of a Feather
+    Session" on Resource Sharing Networks, NIC 15337.
+2.  "A Resource Sharing Executive for the ARPANET", R. Thomas, Preprint
+    of paper for 1973 National Computer Conference, BBN Report 2522, NIC
+    #14689.
+3.  "Terminal Access to the ARPANET - Experience and Improvements", N.
+    Mimno, B. Cosell, Walden, et. al., COMPCON 73 Proceedings, NIC
+    14791.
+4.  "A Tentative Proposal for a Modified User Protocol", M. Padlipsky,
+    RFC 451, NIC #14135.
+
+
+
+Thomas                                                          [Page 4]
+
+RFC 504                  Workshop Announcement                April 1973
+
+
+5.  "Interentity Communication - An experiment", R. Bressler, R. Thomas,
+    RFC 441, NIC 13773.
+6.  "Netbank", J. Postel, RFC 408, NIC #12390.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+       [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with    ]
+       [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp.             9/99 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas                                                          [Page 5]
+