Draft Minutes October 10-11, 1995
Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) Meeting
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1235
Arlington, VA 22230
Attending FNCAC Members:
Henriette Avram, Library of Congress, Retired; Alan Blatecky, MCNC; GeorgeBrandenburg, Harvard University; Ken Flamm, Brookings Institution; CarolHenderson, American Library Association (Chairperson Designate); Bob Heterick,Educom; Sid Karin, SDSC; Kenneth King, CREN; Ken Klingenstein, University ofColorado; Stu Loken, LBL; Paul Mockapetris, @HOME; Stewart Personick, BellCommunications (Chairperson, FNCAC); Thomas Rindfleish, Stanford University;Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information center; and Connie Stout, TENET
Attending Members of the FNC and FNC Working Groups:
John Cavallini, DOE; Tice DeYoung, NASA; Phil Dystra, ARL; Frank Hartel, NIH;Jim Hott,USGS; Priscilla Huston, NSF; Henry Lai, GSA; Alfred Lee, DoC/NTIA; Gregory Parham, USDA; Joe Pasquariello, DoD/DISA; Alex Poliakoff, Dept of Education; George Seweryniak, Dept. of Energy; Stephen L. Squires, ARPA; Mike St. Johns, ARPA; Dennis Steinauer, NIST; George Strawn, NSF; Walter Wiebe, FNC; Ed Wintermute, NSA
Hans-Werner Braun, SDSC/NLANR; Kimberly Claffy, SDSC/NLANR; Adam Eisgau,American Library Association; Elise Gerich, Merit; Lee McKnight, MIT; LindaRoberts, Dept. of Education; Richard Solomon, MIT; John Toole, NCO; and JimWilliams, FARNET
Bob Aiken, DOE/LLNL; W.H. Baumer, PSInet; Heather Boyles, FARNET; BruceBulin, Consultant; Don Dulchinos, Cable Labs; Barbara Fraser, CERT; DouglasGatchell, NSF/CISE/NCRI; Charles Lee, MCI; Barry Leiner, ARPA; Ken McNulty, CERT; Fran Nielsen, NIST; Peter O'Neil, MCI; David Staudt, NSF; Dan VanBelleghem, NSF-EPSCOR
FNC Support Staff:
Lynn Behnke, DynCorp; Scott Behnke, DynCorp; Karla Breitbach, DynCorp; TracieMonk, DynCorp; and Charlene Veney, DynCorpII. AGENDA AND PROCEEDINGS
1. Opening and Overview
Stewart Personick, FNCAC Chair, called the meeting to order, welcoming the threenew members (Alan Blatecky, Stu Loken, and Paul Mockapetris), returning membersof the FNCAC, and members of the FNC. Personick explained that Tony Villasenor,Acting FNC Chair, had been unexpectedly called away on travel to Africa, and wouldbe unable to participate in the FNCAC meeting.
2. Old Business
The FNCAC recommendations of May 23rd and June 29th were discussed and GeorgeBrandenburg was commended for his efforts in shepherding FNCAC inputs andconsensus on the six recommendations concerning the New Internet Paradigm. Theletter from Tony Villasenor, concerning FNC follow-up to the resolutions, wasmentioned.
Personick discussed the recent establishment of an FNCAC Steering Committee,composed of the current FNCAC Chair, the past Chair, and the Chair designate. Thissteering committee will be tasked with working with the FNCAC and FNC throughoutthe year to identify and work critical issues. The committee will also assist the FNC indeveloping upcoming agendas, ensuring that appropriate FNCAC members areidentified to work with FNC working group chairs and working with upcomingFNCAC speakers to refine issues and define areas where FNCAC members can makesubstantive contributions. This "business like" approach to the management of theFNCAC should enhance its working relationship with the FNC.
The April 1995 Minutes were approved as written.
3. New Business
A. Federal Networking Plan
Elise Gerich (Merit) delivered a presentation on the Federal Engineering PolicyGroup's (FEPG's) draft proposal to the FNC's Engineering and Operations WorkingGroup (EOWG) on future connectivity plans for the Federal research and education(R&E) networks. The goals of the proposal are to maintain ubiquitous connectivity forFederal agency networks and common points of interconnection between thesenetworks. She described the current configuration at the FIX- East and West facilitiesand at the three NSF-sponsored network access points (NAPs) and MAE-East.
The criteria used to evaluate future collocation options include: space for four racks(one per agency), 10 KVA power, 24-hour access by escort, equipment owned andmanaged by respective agencies, site support available within two hours, and theavailability of the routing arbiter service.
Based on these criteria, the FEPG proposes the following: the Federal agencynetworks relocate from FIX-East to the Sprint NAP by May 1, 1996; the connectivityat FIX-West be maintained and be dual homed on FIX-West and MAE-West by May1, 1996; and that the FEPG pursue alternative scenarios on the West coast whichpermit bridging FIX-West and the Pacific Bell NAP. In addition to theserecommendations, the Routing Arbiter Service will become fully operational at FIX-West/MAE-West by December 1995 and NASA Science Internet (NSI) will procure agigaswitch by January 1996 for the MAE-West FDDI.
The outstanding issues concerning this proposal include: identifying a group to testthe feasibility of bridging FIX-West and the PacBell NAP; identifying individuals tospecify what statistics are to be collected and how to collect them; and addressingsecurity concerns of the various agencies. Whether a single or double FDDI isrequired on the FIX-West (to enhance security and traffic reliability) is still beingdiscussed.
There was significant discussion concerning the fact that the FEPG proposal representsa technical solution for meeting the agencies' connectivity requirements, rather than anFNC strategy for how to "make the current commercial architecture work". From theperspective of the FEPG, the fact that the PacBell NAP does not permit co-location ofequipment represents a fundamental flaw in the NAPs' ability to service Federalnetworks.
In responding to a question about lessons learned during the transition, Gerichsuggested that the fact that there were multiple components to the transition, each withdifferent rule sets, may have inhibited the establishment of strong, cooperativerelationships at the outset of the transition. NSF explained that each of the cooperativeagreement awardees was intentionally granted significant flexibility to developalternative technical solutions for the commercial architecture. The status of thesesolutions will be examined in January / February 1996, during the scheduled review ofthe three NAPs and the Routing Arbiter awardees (Merit and ISI).
Since the vBNS is ATM, the question arose as to whether the Federal networks shouldpursue ATM and utilize ATM connection points, i.e., the PacBell NAP. Gerichdifferentiated between the Federal R&E production networks (NSI, ESnet, DREN, andDISA) and the purely experimental networks (e.g., the vBNS and the Acts ATMInterconnect network, AAI). The later networks are not dependent on reliablesubstrates, and instead are used to deliberately strain existing architectures as they testnew ideas and techniques. In the view of the FEPG, ATM is still sufficientlyexperimental that it is not the ideal solution for routine production traffic.
As a representative of both the FEPG and the EOWG, Phil Dykstra (Army ResearchLab, ARL), discussed the FEPG proposal from the perspective of one of theproduction networks -- the Interim DREN network. IDREN is a multiple T3 backbonenetwork which functions, in many respects, like an independent service provider (ISP). Dykstra explained some of the motivating factors driving the Federal networks'decision to move to commercial NAPs, including the fact that new technology(gigaswitches) has alleviated some of the historic security considerations. Heexplained that the Federal R&E networks are still unwilling to use ATM service at thistime for IP production traffic, however, IDREN and many of other networks plan totransition to DS3 ATM/SONET service by 2001. One future concern facing bothFederal and private networks alike is the increasing complexity of routing resultingfrom the rise of pair-wise connections. This issue, he suggested, has operationalimplications, as well as an R&D dimension.
During this session, the group debated several policy questions (many of whichresurfaced throughout the two-day meeting). These questions include:
* Who should set the policies at the NAPs and the FIXes? What should thegovernment's role be in this area?
* How long should we have government sponsored NAPs or FIXes?
* Should there be one or more government-ONLY interconnection points?
* Should the Federal agencies be endorsing alternative connectivity solutions (i.e., theFEPG proposal) or focussing on how to make the commercial architecture work?
* The FEPG draft proposal is being finalized this October. FNCAC comments / recommendations during this period are invited and should besent to Elise Gerich at firstname.lastname@example.org.
* The FNC's EOWG will finalize the Federal Transition Planduring November; FNCAC comments / recommendations during this period should besent to the FNC at email@example.com.
B. New Directions in NSF Networking Programs
Priscilla Huston, NSFnet Program Manager, delivered a presentation on the status ofthe transition to the new commercial architecture (effective April 30, 1995) and onstatus of NSF's very high speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS). In addition torelinquishing responsibilities for network backbone service, NSF plans to end itssupport of commodity services (i.e., support of the regional access providers) by 1998. NSF's goals are to have the commercial NAPs facilitate the emergence of robustprivate sector internetworks and the routing arbiter facilitate interconnectivity betweenthese points.
Merit is currently finalizing a 40-page pamphlet describing the transition. The officialtransition, which occurred in April 1995 was a non-event, resulting in minimaldisruptions to service. The broader transition, explained Huston, of making networksand ISPs aware of the NAPs and Routing Arbiter service, are still being addressed.
NSF deliberately designed the NAPs with flexibility and with some competitiveattributes, allowing them to determine some characteristics individually. All NAPsare operational, but all the national service providers (NSPs) are not peering at allNAPs; NSPs are still not peering actively at the PacBell and Ameritech NAPs. Duringits upcoming assessment of the NAPs, NSF will examine the question of whichfeatures should be common among all NAPs and which should be self-determined. Representatives from San Diego Supercomputer center (SDSC) and Bellcore willattempt to stimulate a workshop to address statistics gathering in the new architecturein early 1996.
More information on the NAPs and the Routing Arbiter service can be found at thefollowing URLs:
Huston described the status of the vBNS since its turn-on by MCI in April 1995. In June, the NSF held a vBNS workshop and formed the vBNS Technical Coordinating Committee (VTCC). The VTCC consists of representatives from the supercomputer centers and MCI. It is tasked with making recommendations to NSF on which projects should be allowed on the vBNS, the list of projects which have been recommended can be found on the NLANR server at the following URL: http://www.nlanr.net/VBNS/Alloc/Frvbns. The proposed mBONE project by SDSC will be among the most rigorous tests. The cave project being run by Argonne is another challenging effort. Other sources for vBNS information, include: http://www.vbns.net/ and http://www.tele.pitt.edu/vbns_meas.html.
Other big efforts include the Supercomputer 95 (URL: http://rosebud.sdsc.edu/SC95) and the associated IWAY projects (URL: http://.iway.org).
* FNCAC suggestions relating to the transition orrecommendations on the vBNS, including possible meritorious, high-bandwidthapplication projects, should be made directly to Priscilla Huston, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Many of the policy issues raised in the prior session resurfaced following thispresentation. There was particular concern regarding the perception that while theInternet, in the past, was based on a collegial model, this model may not be adjustingwell to today's competitive environment. Additional questions which were discussedincluded:
* Should the Federal agencies be "role model" users of the new architecture? As anaffinity group, should the FNC and its representative Federal R&E networks define aset of baseline service criteria to be met by ISPs and NAPs?
* What role does the Federal government have in attempting to "mitigate" thedownsides of today's competitive networking environment?
* What is the role of FNCAC in the evolution of the Federal networks?
George Brandenburg explained that the quality of service available to the high energyphysics community declined significantly during and following the April 1995transition. According to FEPG members, this degradation has in large measure beendue to routing instabilities resulting from increased traffic.
While many participants suggested that they are unaware of any noticeabledegradation of services, most expressed a degree of discomfort about the transition. The concerns expressed during this discussion ranged from feelings that...
* the spirit of the new commercial architecture is not being upheld; to
* the fact that the new emerging industry has not created an oversight body to dealwith to deal with industry issues related to quality of service, etc.
George Strawn, NSF's new Director for DCNRI, described the agency's plans forfuture networking research. These plans are influenced by the objectives of severalgroups, including the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC)initiative's objectives related to the national R&E network (NREN), the Committee onInformation and Communications (CIC's) goal for a global scale informationinfrastructure, NSF's efforts to integrate R&E, and CISE's objective to work toward aconvergence of computing and communications technologies.
During the coming years, NCRI will focus on three primary activities:
1) acceleratingcomputer network R&D,
2) broadening R&E infrastructure support, and
3) definingand implementing a high performance computer network for the R&E community.
In its efforts to accelerate computer network R&D, NSF will focus on convergence ofcomputing and communications through promoting the building of disciplinarybridges and using vBNS in support of research on new network technologies andservices.
R&E infrastructure support will be broadened through new a connections program for"innovative technology". This will accelerate acceptance of internetworking in K-12,libraries, and museums. NSF will continue connections in higher education and offera "high performance" connections option for the higher education community.
In designing its High Performance Computer Network for R&E programannouncement, NSF will set a mid term goal of connecting up to 100 institutions witha T3 or better high performance connection. Other features which might be a part ofthe announcement include provisions for a T1 or better commodity connection for theinstitution and a plan for high performance campus networking. Infrastructurecomponents which are being considered for this announcement include developmentof networking infrastructures that:
a) are beyond those which are commerciallyavailable (e.g., high bandwidth to the application, flow and admission controls,resource reservation, usage based accounting, IPv6, etc.);
b) interconnect with thevBNS and other high performance facilities;
c) utilize special high performance NAPs;and
d) operate under a suitable AUP.
FNCAC members questioned whether NSF, and other Federal agencies, are preparedfor the volume of K-12 schools which are coming on-line, and for the significantchanges which are beginning in education and educational curriculum.
Other members suggested that NSF and the other FNC agencies make efforts to get theresults of this research on-line, with guidance on navigating through this information. Specific requests were made for making the results of the vBNS workshop andprojects and ESnet project results available.
* The FNC should endeavor to make the results of itsagencies networking R&D efforts more accessible to the public, i.e., with links from the FNCHome Page to relevant R&D agency web sites.
Strawn responded to questions about the vBNS' acceptable use policy (AUP),indicating that the policy was under review. One alternative suggested at the JunevBNS workshop was that of a "negative" AUP -- an AUP based on the premise that"everything that is not explicitly denied is permitted".
Participants discussed the alternatives of building up high speed connections at theNAPs versus using the High Performance Computer Network program to develop aseparate R&E infrastructure. Several members expressed the view that commercialnetworks tend toward wide pipes and redundancies, but not necessarily toward highspeed and experimentation. The requirements of these networks, they argued,frequently exceed the capacities of available commercial services. Other participantsargued that NSF's solicitation could be used to drive the capabilities of the commercialarchitecture.
The point was made that the gap between the commercial services and the R&Enetworks can not be closed by virtue of the fact that the state-of-the-art in servicerequirements of Federal R&E networks will continue to surpass that of the commercialnetworks. Capabilities of both groups will continue to advance, but the gap betweenthem will remain.
George Strawn also described NSF's September 1995 actions in enacting a new policyfor charging for Domain Names, and NSF's plan for developing a long-term solution. In 1993, NSF awarded a cooperative agreement to Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) toadminister the InterNIC, including domain name registration services. Exponentialgrowth in the Internet, however, has driven the cost of these services from $1 millionper year (original estimate) to upwards $1 million per month, prompting the interim,fee-oriented policy change by NSF.
This interim solution includes: an annual fee for DNS names (no fee for numbers; a$100 initial fee for a two-year period, with a $50 annual renewal fee thereafter) andrequirements for NSI to place 30% of collected fees into an "intellectual infrastructure"pool with an NSF-sponsored oversight committee. The policy covers those domainnames which are administered by NSI, including: ".COM", ".NET", ".ORG", ".EDU",and ".GOV". The fees for ".EDU" will continue to be paid by NSF as a service to theR&E community. Payments for ".GOV" will temporarily be covered by the NSF. This policy does not affect ".US" or ".MIL" domain names.
NSI's cooperative agreement ends in 1998. In advance of that date, NSF will workdirectly with the Internet community (through a series of workshops and other means)to construct a long-term solution. The first of these workshops will be held at Harvardon November 20th.
Concern was expressed by several individuals over the current naming convention forK-12 schools, placing them within the ".US" domain which is outside of the ".EDU"domain and therefore not financially supported by NSF. Members questioned NSF'sintention in discriminating in its support of the higher education community versus K-12 schools.
FNCAC members indicated their desire to contribute to the development of along-term solution which effectively scales globally. Many members supported thebelief that resolution of this issue will come down to either government regulation orcompetition -- with competition the preferable alternative. Other key issues whichparticipants felt merit consideration during this process include:
* How much does it actually cost to perform domain services and maintain thedomain name registry?
* Should non-country top level domains, e.g. ".COM", be closed to furtherregistrations, while alternative, competitive domain names / services are opened?
* What policies should be advocated for the ".US" domain?
* George Strawn, Sid Karin, and Stu Personick agreed tomeet over dinner and discuss the Domain Name policy issue further and finalize draft language for anFNCAC resolution on this subject.
C. Status of the New Architecture within the Higher Education Community
Ken Klingenstein and Ken King described the sense within the R&Ecommunity (as communicated during the September 1995, Educom seminar on "The NII and Higher Education") that the Internet network is not as robust as it was before the transition. The seminar session had been attended by a cross-section of higher education networking representatives, ISP staff, librarians, and Federal staff.
There are a number of factors obscuring true demand for networking in highereducation, including the reemergence of Fedex networking, increased self-restraint byresearchers, and "deferred services" such as SMTP mail delivery which hide networklimitations.
There are significant service problems in the new environment. This includes awidespread sense that the network is not as robust as it was under NSF's leadershipand that key commercial service providers do not have a proper service orientation. The variation in quality among service providers has increased, with the goal of"staying ahead of the curve" not yet adopted as part of the commercial market. Thepressures of competition tend to favor reducing operational costs to stronger systemsengineering, and have led some providers to confine their problem sharing, refuse toshare trouble tickets, and reduce end-to-end diagnostic efforts. Important elements ofthe new architecture have also been slow to develop, including those related tointer-provider interactions. Bottlenecks are becoming evident in the processingcapacities of switches and routers, and there is increasing entropy in CIDR addressprocesses, which also stresses routers.
According to Klingenstein, serving the higher education and commercial marketplaceswith a single infrastructure presents challenges. The commercial growth hasexacerbated the bottlenecks for higher education users. Without slack capacity,innovation on campuses is being throttled. One possible result is that commercialvendors may not implement advanced routing-based technologies (such as RSVP andmulticast) in a timely fashion to assist higher education applications. Klingensteinemphasized that the traffic shaping for higher education is different that thecommercial marketplace and may lead to inconsistent architectural requirements. Thecollegial circuit sharing of agency network connectivity in higher education has, forthe most part, been replaced by caution and complexity. However, there is still theneed for researchers to have ready access to networks that they can break.
There is a strong feeling among the higher education community that we have made atransition to a "transitional architecture". There remains a critical need for the Federalagencies, working with higher education, to define the long-term approach forconnecting university researchers with agency science resources.
FNCAC members commended the report and reminded members of the historicalprecedent of the transition from ARPAnet to NSFnet. Participants discussed thepossibility of pushing for differentiation between commercial services and groups thathave special needs, e.g. medical profession and higher education R&E community,versus those of the general network user. Connie Stout reminded participants of the"unique" needs of the K-12 community, and the fact that commercial service providersare not prepared to deal with these needs.
There was some disagreement as to whether the needs of the K-12 and other usergroups were more difficult to meet than those of the general public.
D. Post FTS 2000 Status Report
Margaret Binns described GSA's Post FTS2000 procurement as a "movement toward a telecommunications environment" for the Federal government, as opposed to simplya procurement for long distance telephone services. This new environment will becharacterized by sophisticated technology, greater user capabilities, increasedderegulation, more uncertainty, and more choices overall. GSA is responding to thisnew environment by attempting to frame a new user paradigm based on a globalperspective, network organization, partnerships/alliances, customer focus, etc. It isintended to focus on core competencies and be "information technology enabling". Itwill not have mandatory use as we know it today, but instead will be "mandatory forconsideration", allowing agencies some discretion in selecting best value versus lowestcost services.
The objectives of GSA's Federal Telecommunication Program (FTP) include:
a)meeting users' requirements in a technically-effective and cost-efficient manner;
b)supporting national information infrastructure (NII) and National Performance Review(NPR) goals; and
c) providing access and interoperability among Federal agencies, andbetween Federal agencies and with State/local/and Tribal governments and the publicat large.
The original FTS2000 award included two 10-year contracts. Under the new program,there will be approximately 12 contracts, each with a base of four years, plus optionyears. Each will contain minimum revenue guarantees. There will be several omnibuscontracts, covering all services, and several specialized service contracts. Agencieswill have a choice of contracting with a single entity, or separately contracting forvoice, data, and video services. Other evolving services which are under considerationby the Interagency Management Council (IMC) include: secure services (e.g. publickey certificate management, directory services, and secure e-mail); ATM switching;mobile satellite services (MSS); and dedicated transmission service (SONET) digitalchannels operating above OC-12. Advanced services being considered by the IMCinclude: network information directory resource (NIDR) services; collaborativecomputing; location systems; emerging wireless/PCS, such as 2-way paging, enhancedSMR, and advanced MSS.
GSA has viewed the post FTS2000 procurement as working in parallel with Internet,with post FTS2000 ultimately moving toward ATM/SONET services. The IMC viewssome services, such as secure video conferencing capabilities, as unavailable oncommercial Internet and are attempting to develop alternative services. Binns andFrank Ferranti (Mitre) depicted a future post FTS2000 (PF2K) scenario where Federalusers will be connected by PF2K network service providers via a series of directnetwork-to-network interfaces, NAPs, and gateways.
Binns explained that options for state & local governments utilization of this vehicleare currently being discussed. One member questioned whether higher educationcommunity might also be able to utilize the procurement.
Participants expressed the concern that GSA may not fully appreciate the technologyemployed in internetworking or the rapid pace at which it is developing. FNCACmembers specifically noted that "the time to procurement (in the government) is oftenas long as the time to obsolescence in this dynamically changing environment". GSAagreed saying that they have tried to build flexibility into the system in order torespond to new technological developments.
Participants also inquired about GSA's efforts to promote government interoperabilitythrough the RFPs (two of which are currently available in draft form and will beformally issued in early 1996). The RFPs contain functional specifications forinteroperability. On the security side, the alternative interface capabilities (DMScrypto option, DES w/ public & private keys, standard of digital signature) areavailable for agency use. These alternatives are based on the recommendations ofGSA's Security and Infrastructure Program Management Office (PMO).
Some participants expressed that feeling that selection of these securityinteroperability options has not taken place in a sufficiently open environment and that the desire that the spirit of openness which characterizes the Internet should be applied to the FederalTelecommunications environment.
E. FARNET's State Infrastructure Database Project
Jim Williams of the Federation of American Research Networks (FARNET) describedthe project which FARNET has recently initiated, with support from the NSF. In mid1994, FARNET initiated discussions with the FNC and NSF regarding thedevelopment of a comprehensive source for state networking infrastructureinformation. In September 1995, FARNET received an award from NSF for a "3-yearterminal project" which has a goal of the 50 states assuming maintenanceresponsibilities for the information at the end of this period. The InterNIC will hostthe data on a Web home page, with the first data to be up by March 1996.
The database will include information ranging from demographic and infrastructuredata to telecommunications regulatory data on each state. It will also have pointers toinformation on what is happening in K-12, possibly pointing to the TENET page onthis subject.
It was suggested that the database include information on significant independent initiatives, including partnerships between industry and academia or othergroups.
* Additional comments on the directions or scope ofFARNET's State Infrastructure Database Project should be provided directly to JimWilliams, Farnet, at email@example.com.
F. National Technology Plan
Linda Roberts, U.S. Department of Education, explained that about seven weeks ago,President Clinton decided to adopt a new policy to accelerate schools' access totechnology. The Department of Education, through development of its NationalTechnology Plan, has focussed on infrastructure, both connectivity and basicinfrastructure such as computers in schools, engaging and supporting teachers to allowthem to use these tools, improving content, and ensuring that available applications aremeaningful and useful.
In California 10 days ago, Clinton set a new policy in place. Earlier this day, thePresident invited noted private sector representatives to the White House to discussprivate sector contributions to promoting awareness and use of educational technologyin the U.S. Participants included George Lucas, Michael Eisner, Ted Turner, RaySmith, Alex Mendle, John Hendrix, and others. Each of the participatingorganizations have education initiatives planned or underway. All were intent onworking to promote the development of meaningful technology and applications to further foundations of future education.
The President announced the award of 19 Challenge Grants for Technology inEducation. The awards, totalling $9.5 million, are to school districts who havecommunity partners who are providing matching commitments of more than $70million in the first year, and over $300 million during the 5-year span of the projects. The challenge grants are focused on "content development", rather than technology. Winning proposals have tended to be those which clearly articulated how technologywas being incorporated into curriculum goals. The winning proposals are centered onteachers and tend to encourage their empowerment. Generally, winning schooldistricts have a strong patron, either a Federal agency, school administrator, etc. whichhas provided start-up funding. They also tend to have a significant focus on teacherdevelopment. The new Tech Corp. program was also described.
The National Technology Plan, which had been near completion, has resulted from anan iterative process, with inputs from the White House, the National InformationInfrastructure Advisory Council (NIIAC), and others.
Participants suggested that the role of the "community" could beemphasized in developing strategies for promoting use of educational technology. This concept would expand students' awareness of and participation in theircommunity and engage the community in the development of educational technologyapplications and curriculum in the schools.
Members discussed the need to reach school administrators and fire them up, and theneed to develop a set of expectations for our schools.
On Thursday, October 12th, the House Education and Science Committee will hold ajoint hearing on Educational Technology. No members of the Administration wereinvited to participate.
* The Department of Education invited members of theFNCAC to submit opinions, recommendations, or position papers on the topic ofeducational technology to the Department of Education, for transmission to the WhiteHouse. Members interested in this subject should contact the Chair of the FNC'sEducation Working Group, Alex Poliakoff at Alex_Poliakoff@ed.gov.
G. FNC/NCO Collaboration
John Toole, Director of the National Coordination Office (NCO) of High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program and representingthe Committee on Information and Communications (CIC) under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), described the new FNC charter.
Under this charter, the FNC is to be part of the CIC process, of which HighPerformance Computing and Communications is the largest component. The FNCwill work in collaboration with the NCO for HPCC and the HPCCIT. FNC/NCOcollaboration will be facilitated by the co-location of the FNC Executive Director withthe NCO staff and by developing compatible goals, based on feedback between theR&D and user communities. This collaboration will include the FNC advocacy ofHPCCIT technologies within Federal networks and possible testbeds with variousFederal and commercial sectors.
The FNCAC will continue as an NSF-sponsored advisory committee. Thecomposition of the FNCAC will not change, but should evolve with the FNC. Therewill be an increased emphasis on issues relating to technology transfer and "bridgingthe gap" between the research agencies, Federal users, and the commercial sector.
Participants suggested that the FNC Chair should sit on the CIC Executive Committee,to encourage direct communications between the CIC executive body and the FNC. Others suggested that the FNCAC Chair should be invited annually to attend a CIC ECmeeting to share information on critical CIC issues / FNCAC issues. In this way, theCIC/FNC and the FNCAC could jointly agree on a set of high priority tasks for thecoming year.
Members commented that the most pressing issue of concern within theFNCAC currently is that of the government's responsibility for completing thesuccessful transition of the Internet from the NSFnet backbone service to the newcommercial architecture. The FNCAC Chair requested that Toole communicate theFNCAC's concerns on this topic to Anita Jones, CIC Chair.
One member asked about whether the FNC will broaden its focus to include the otherbranches of government (legislative and judiciary). FNCAC members noted that inthe past, the Advisory Committee has expressed its view that the FNC agencies have adirect responsibility for developing curriculum modules relating to their missionfunctions. Members expressed the opinion that this responsibility extends to the othertwo branches of government. Toole noted that there was no plan to extend the FNC'sresponsibilities beyond the Executive Branch's research and education networks.
* John Toole agreed to communicate the FNCAC's views to the CIC Executive Committee relating to: ensuring a successful transition from the NSFnet backbone service to the new commercial architecture and enhancing the FNC/FNCAC's working relationship with the CIC.
The meeting was adjourned until Wednesday.
October 11, 1995
II. PROCEEDINGS CON'T4. Action Item Discussion / Election of New FNCAC Chair
A. Role of the FNCAC
Stewart Personick discussed the future operating procedures of the FNCAC,particularly in light of the FNC's elevation to direct reporting to the CIC. Hesuggested that the FNCAC, FNC, and CIC should consider the merits of adopting astructure similar to the Defense Science Board / Army Science Board. Under thismodel, the FNCAC's membership would be expanded, broadening the technicalbreadth of the body. Major projects would be assigned to subgroups of thismembership.
Members noted that while this might result in more substantive products, itsweakness lies in the fact that the FNCAC does not respond to a single customer, given that the FNC is a forum for cooperation and collaboration among multiple agency networks.
Another model suggested for consideration is that of the NRC where advisorycommittee members can individually identify the key issues for consideration. Insome cases, studies might be funded by FNC agencies to investigate these issues. Intellectual property rights was identified as an example of an issue for which themajority of FNCAC membership might not feel qualified to comment, but where asubset of the FNCAC might address the issue in some depth. End-to-end connectivityand some of the other issues identified in the FNCAC's May recommendations on theNew Internet Paradigm might fall into this category. International needs forconnectivity in terms of the global community needs is another issue identified bymembers.
* FNCAC members agreed that a statement of work shouldbe developed identifying key issues which the FNCAC plans to work on between meetings and a schedule / assignments for addressing these issues. [Not assigned.]
B. Transition Workshop
As a champion of the R&E community, in fulfillment of its charter, and as acontinuation of the four years already spent participating in Federal planning regardingthe transition, FNCAC members agreed that the FNCAC has a role and continuedresponsibility relating to the successful transition of the NSFnet backbone service tothe commercial architecture.
One possible avenue for accomplishing this effort is through a Workshop on "Makingthe Transition Work". Members expressed their support for this workshop, and StuPersonick agreed to take the lead in developing a proposal for the workshop. GeorgeStrawn expressed NSF's tentative support for this idea and noted the possibility ofNSF contributing some financial support to the effort.
The workshop will focus on what problems, if any, are not being fully addressed bythe government and/or commercial service providers. It would be used to bringtogether the major network operators and certain user communities, e.g. K-12, highereducation, etc. to investigate what more needs to be done to transition this nascentindustry into a viable, reasonably mature commercial industry. It would also be usedto address many of the numerous policy issues / questions identified throughout thismeeting (see notes above). Another subject for discussion is the need for a technicaloversight body, possibly along the lines of the telecommunications industry's Network Reliability Council.
Members agreed that, in order to be successful, the workshop should be driven by"high level customers", e.g. Anita Jones for the government, Vint Cerf (MCI) for theservice providers, etc. It also needs inducement or enforcement mechanisms forfollowing up on its recommendations. The development of model service contractswas suggested as one means by which government agencies could influence theperformance of service providers (i.e., in requiring the availability of trouble tickets).
The question of "who" has sufficient clout and neutrality to host such an even wasextensively discussed. Suggestions included: EDUCOM (which just completed thehighly successful Monterey Conference), NANOG, and the CIX.
Elise Gerich noted that Merit facilitates NANOG meetings, and that they would bewilling to assist in scheduling a presentation/discussion on this subject. The nextNANOG meeting is scheduled for February 1996 in Arizona, hosted by AGIS/Net 99. She also agreed to contact Bob Collett (Sprint) who currently heads the CIX to inquireas to his interest in the CIX hosting this workshop.
* Stu Personick will take the lead responsibility inshepherding this Internet "transition" workshop effort.
* Elise Gerich will act as an emissary from the FNCAC to theCIX (Bob Collett, Sprint) to discuss the CIX's interest in hosting this workshop.
* The FNC will have the responsibility of identifying/contactingthe appropriate Federal government champion, e.g. Anita Jones, for the Internet transition workshop.
* FNCAC members (and Elise Gerich) will assist in identifyingthe appropriate representatives from the K-12 and higher education communities.
C. Resolutions / Recommendations from 10/10/95
Two draft resolutions and two draft recommendations from the previous day werediscussed. The following three were passed, with minor modifications to thelanguage.
The FNCAC encourages NSF to adopt a policy of "liberal experimentation" on the vBNS, while discouraging use of the network services for commodity traffic.
The FNCAC recognizes NSF's action in enacting the Domain Name Fee Policy as a reasonable near-term action, and urges NSF to implement along-term solution, e.g. competitive registration services, as quickly as possible. And,the FNCAC specifically urges NSF to develop a solution which removes the NSF fromresponsibility for this function.
The NSF is encouraged to raise the priority of the development and near-term distribution of the program announcement for high performance connections to the Internet.
Another proposed recommendation concerning "developing a systemmatic technologytransition strategy for facilitating and accelerating the commercial impacts of theresults of vBNS applications and other Federal networking experiments" wasdiscussed, but not passed. During discussions, several members expressed the viewthat the wording of this recommendation might create undue emphasis on short-termcommercial applications to the detriment of long-term basic networking research.
D. Supercomputer '95
As an information item, Sid Karin spoke briefly concerning the Supercomputer '95conference scheduled for San Diego this December. This year's conference includesan increased emphasis on high performance communications. All technicalpresentation rooms will be connected to the Net. There will be no printed proceedings,with all materials and proceedings will be available on the World Wide Web. Highspeed communications up to vBNS speeds will be available, and as part of theInformation Highway (IWAY) effort, there will be about 30 demonstrations of highspeed applications, mostly from the university community.
Copies of "TENET: After Three Years" and Texas House Bill 2128, concerningpublic utility rates and services affecting telecommunications regulation in Texas,were distributed to members for their later review.
F. Election of New FNCAC Chair Designate
The subject of the election of a new FNCAC chair was introduced. Sid Karin wasnominated, seconded and elected by acclimation. His term will begin effectiveimmediately following the October 1996 meeting of the FNCAC.
5. New Business Con't
A. Internet Economics
Lee McKnight and Richard Solomon (MIT) provided an update on the status ofdefining Internet Economics since their April presentation before the FNCAC.
While the debate between flat-rate versus usage-based pricing continues, the Internet community appears more receptive to alternatives (largely due to the growth of the Web marketplace). McKnight explained that audio, video, and voice services place different demands on the Net and that these services are beginning to have a statistical impact. To emphasize the potential impact of these growth sectors, he demonstrated a shareware version of the Internet phone, entitled Mavis (URL: ftp://plaza.aarnet.edu.au). Placing a "free" long-distance call to Boston, McKnight had an MIT student explain how he was setting up a voice-based chat group on the Internet. Participants agreed that the Internet telecom demo (running at approximately 19 kbps) resulted in minimal degradation in audio quality from that of telephone service.
McKnight identified several challenges facing the Federal government, including:
* How to conduct meaningful pricing experiments without disrupting daily use of theInternet?
* How to implement a new pricing mechanism if it is not universally accepted?
* Whether Federal use of internet phone services should be encouraged ordiscouraged?
McKnight and Solomon suggested that the FNC encourage systematic statistical datacollection and analysis, particularly related to K-12 schools; that Federal testbedexperiments be conducted utilizing the new pricing and video/voice service tools; andthat Federal networking research and self-experimentation be continued. Theyindicated that there is a particular need to collect data on 'early adopter schools' --however, this is often impeded by local decision making and regulations preventingcollection of data in some states.
The group discussed the significant complexities and difficulties in measuringeducational productivity (as opposed to incident usage). What types of data should becollected and how it should be measured are questions which have long been indispute within the education community. EDUCOM indicated that it looked into thisquestion, but resolved that it could not advocate any form of statistics data acquisitiondue to the "impossibility of comparability" in this field. Members discussed thevarious statistics acquisition methodologies employed by the Bureau of Census.
* Connie Stout will work with Lee McKnight via e-mail to draft a resolution for consideration by the FNCAC concerning the acquisition of education-related statistics.
B. Acquisition of Statistics: Implications for the Future
Kimberly Claffy and Hans-Werner Braun delivered a presentation on the importanceand difficulty of gathering statistics under the new commercial architecture and viaATM technology. In the last few years, there has been a significant change in thenature of the Internet user. In the earlier stages, the users were only minimallyremoved from the Internet's developers. As the ubiquitous nature of the Internet hasincreased (as has functionality, expectations, and complexity); the basic expertise ofthe users has significantly declined, as has the ability of existing methods to adjust tothe evolving networking environment.
In this era of increased internetworking uncertainty, there is a basic need to understand the workings and functioning of the Internet through reliable acquisition and analysis of network traffic and usage statistics. However, researchers' ability to undertake these data collection / analysis efforts is severely compromised by post-NSFnet era policies and priorities (e.g., privacy considerations of the new commercial NAPs and NSPs) as well as technological limitations (e.g., the lack of reliable hardware for gathering and aggregating ATM packet data). (For a historical analysis of this situation, see URL: http://www.nlanr.net/SDSC/ANR/kc/in95npst)
Currently, SDSC is collecting hourly sample data at the FIX-West facility (for background information and analysis of data, see URL: http://www.nlanr.net/Fix.) Challenges related to development of transaction profiles include defeating flow aggregation capabilities and developing methodologies for measuring high bandwidth/duration products.
Claffy/Braun identified several areas where the FNCAC can assist the FNC, includingencouraging:
a) a better understanding of the Internet internetworkings and the requirements for service models -- both at the component and a systemic levels;
b) an accounting and pricing architecture withmultiple service qualities to promote incentives for users to place a value on theirresource consumption;
c) broad integration of security and privacy measures;
d) theleveraging across the many networking activities, to help address the complexities; anassessment of the cost/benefit tradeoffs of "doing" or "not doing" certain things.
Participants noted that NSF's cooperative agreements with the NAPs provide for thecollection of statistics on traffic at the NAPs, but they do not specify which statisticsneed to be collected. It was suggested that NSF might revisit this provision followingthe proposed SDSC/Bellcore statistics workshop in early 1996.
Participants agreed that technology facilitating statistics acquisition should be thefocus of a basic research effort (possibly by ARPA or NSF). The desired productwould be dedicated hardware capable of gathering and aggregating packets for criticaldata collection on ATM networks. (Currently Bellcore is supporting ARPA on arelated effort.) It was also suggested that the FNC agencies should cooperate andjointly agree on how their networks will instrumented -- and that this topic should beplaced on the HPC research agenda. Furthermore, participants discussed the overallimportance of Federal networking agencies becoming a role model for implementing "service models", including, among other things, specific statistics collection requirements. Claffy and Braun also pointed out that the data collection is only a small piece of the problem, suggesting that a strong focus on goals andobjectives for the analysis is needed at the post-processing stage, as well as during the application of results to network architecture and engineering.
FNCAC members also noted the importance of encouraging an industry group to cometogether and sort out how the industry can best address the need for statisticsacquisition, and the public's need for certain traffic details.
FNCAC members urged the FNC to develop mechanisms to stimulate collection of statistics on the Net, including developing/buying "boxes" capable ofgathering/analyzing ATM packets, and using these devices on FNC agency R&Enetworks. They also noted that statistics acquisition is inseparably linked to theindustry "getting its act together" to better manage the commercial Internet.
* Sid Karin will draft a resolution on the subject of Internet statistics forconsideration by FNCAC members.
* Kimberly Claffy / Hans-Werner Braun agreed to define what types of statistics data should be collection on Internet traffic, and in particular, what data acquisition capabilities need to be addressed in the development of new equipment for capturing / aggregating packets on high speed networks, e.g. ATM networks.
C. FNC's Security Working Group (SWG)
Dennis Steinauer, Co-Chair of the SWG, delivered a presentation on the SWG's accomplishments during 1995 and plans for 1996. Central to this discussion was the recent finalization of the draft Federal Internet Security Plan (FISP). (A copy of the plan is available on the SWG section of FNC WWW page, URL: http://www.fnc.gov/SWG.html.)
Following the April meeting of the FNCAC, the FISP was split into two parts. Part Iof the plan is compete. Part II (linking the FISP to relevant security standards, RFCs,R&D efforts, etc.) is being developed in collaboration with the IETF and otherelements of the Internet community. An invitational workshop to review the FISP andplans for implementation of its action items is scheduled for early 1996. Other SWGefforts planned for 1996 include enhancement of the FNC server and definition /implementation of security pilots / prototypes / testbeds.
The basic approaches/concepts advocated in the Plan focus on developing security"enclaves" and maintaining an "open" Internet. The Plan employs a comprehensivesystems approach, coupled with the establishment of a "continuous improvementprocess" -- with the Plan itself evolving as the technology base develops. Recommendations for specific actions are divided into four categories: Internetsecurity policy, Internet security technology, Internet security infrastructure, andeducation and awareness.
The FNCAC is being asked to review whether the Plan meets Federal needs (asdefined last Spring), and whether the proposed action items make sense from anindustry / educational perspective. The FNCAC is also being asked to identify targets/ testbed efforts for implementing the action items and to contribute to the scoping ofthe proposed workshop. This workshop aims to define a "pre-production" strategy forthe actions identified in the Plan.
One member asked if there are any challenges related to the development of enclaves. Steinauer explained that while it is not central to all action items, enclave models arecritically important and inherently contain technical challenges. According tomembers, the lack of enclave solutions continues to inhibit the willingness of someparties, i.e. Stanford University Hospital, from getting on the Net.
Participants discussed the action item advocating development of a "secure out of thebox" program. Members expressed strong support for shifting the burden forconfiguring secure systems from the systems administrator (current practice) to thevendor.
FNCAC members discussed the process employed in development of the FISP thus farand plans for its further development and implementation. Members expressedconcern that the FNCAC does not have sufficient representation from the Internetsecurity sector given the critical importance of Internet security as a topic.
The FNCAC believes that the SWG is on the right track withthe Federal Internet Security Plan and commends it for adopting an open strategy consistent with the Internet culture.
* The FNC should add someone to the advisory committeewho can be a champion of security issues on the advisory committee. (Assigned to: Stephen Squires / Walter Wiebe)
Another FNCAC member suggested that discussion of the human-computer interfaceneeds to be expanded in the FISP discussion, as well as SWG follow-up. As itcurrently stands, many people and organizations are unwilling to undergo the hasslesof undue requirements to implement security on their systems.
FNCAC members expressed their concern that the topics relating to the SWG, as wellas other subjects, have not been accorded sufficient time or discussion.
* The FNCAC Steering Committee and FNC staff will workto ensure that future FNCAC agendas have fewer agenda items, with more timeallocated to individual topics. Furthermore, the FNCAC steering committee willidentify 3-4 members to be on a working group -- to meet before the FNCACmeeting, digest the subject matter, and champion the discussions.
D. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Adam Eisgau of the American Library Association (ALA) delivered the presentationon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) focussing on the implications of the recentlyrelease IITF White Paper on IPR and the legislation which will soon be introducedwithin Congress.
It is very probable that legislation will go forward in either the 104th or 105thCongress, based on the amendments recommended by the IITF White Paper. Theserecommendations advocate changes to the existing copyright law in seven major areascovering: transmission; library exemptions; visually impaired; importation; technicalprotection; copyright management information; and new criminal penalties involvingthe latter three items. In addition, the recommendations support legislation to increasecriminal penalties for willfully infringing a copyright by reproducing or distributingcopies with an aggregate retail value of $5,000 or more and support a full publicperformance right in sound recordings. In the view of the ALA, only two of theseproposed amendments favor users -- limited library exemptions for preservation andreplacement and limited reproduction for the visually impaired.
The recommendations imply that temporary reproduction in computer memoryconstitutes infringement, e.g., use of caching technologies could be in violation of newlegislation. The recommendations do not distinguish between criminal intent andlegitimate purposes for decryption, such as decompilation of computer programs,government security work, and newer reprographic technology. Copyrightmanagement information (CMI) and CMI systems are not fully addressed in the paper.
The White Paper advocates a reinterpretation of law in three other critical areas -- itlimits both the Fair Use Doctrine and the First Sale Doctrine and fails to relieve theliability of online service providers.
The ALA believes that the FNCAC can make a valuable contribution to this debate, particularly as it relates to networking technologies and capabilities. Eisgau cited the following concerns;
* The White Paper does not recognize the increasing range of industries affected bycopyright policy, or that developmental practices of high tech industries may be quitedifferent from those of traditional print publishing.
* The White Paper does not recognize that the research lab, the university, the school,the library, are the incubators of the new intellectual property.
* The White Paper assumes that copyright is intended to maximize financial returnand minimizes the fact that copyright is a government grant of limited powers in orderto increase knowledge. Its recommendations would shift the balance of powerbetween owners and users of information, and increase monopoly rights.
* While many agencies and organizations where involved in the IITF Working Group,the White Paper is not balanced and reflects the view of the Commerce Department.
Individuals who had participated in the development of the White Paper expressedtheir agreement with the analysis presented by the ALA. They also expressed theirsupport for the ALA's conclusion that the White Paper represents a unbalance view ofthe IPR situation and a lack of appreciation for the current / future state of informationtechnology.
FNCAC members discussed how they can best contribute to this critical issue. Participants agreed that Carol Henderson should lead an on-line discussion amongFNCAC members to develop recommendations.
* An Intellectual Property Rights Working group is nowestablished under the FNCAC. As its chair, Carol Henderson will:
1) query membersas to their individual interests in participating on the working group,
2) be responsiblefor educating the FNCAC on the issues and status of legislation and other actionsrelated to this topic, and
3) be responsible for proposing near-term resolutions / actionsfor the FNCAC to consider.
The FNCAC meeting was adjourned. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled forApril 9&10, 1996.
Last modified on November 3, 1995Systems problems should be reported to FNC_Webmaster@arpa.mil.