Subject: Re: minutes from Orlando

From: Michael Sondow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 14:43:05 -0500

April Marine a écrit:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Here are the minutes from the Orlando meeting.

Thanks, April. These minutes, in this nice concise, readable form are a
great help to people like myself who, for whatever reasons, are unable to
attend the meetings.

I promised to comment on the notes, so here goes. Sorry this is so tardy,
but I haven't much time left over from all the Internet politics writing I
feel obliged to do, which is probably a waste of time, but that seems to be
my cross. Anyway, here are some comments on the meeting notes.

>                             Minutes of the
>                    User Services Working Group (USWG)
>                    IETF - Orlando, FL - December 1998
> 
> Recorded by April Marine.
> 
> USWG met in 3 sessions in Orlando.  Each session had its own scope.
> These minutes cover all three sessions.
> 
> Session 1: Monday, December 7, 1998
> 
> This session had the most varied agenda.
> 
> - USV Area Report
> 
> It started with an overview of the Area and progress since the last
> meeting.  Two groups Responsible Use of the Network (RUN) and Site
> Security Handbook (SSH) have advanced drafts for IESG consideration
> and did not meet in Orlando as most of their actions are done.  USWG
> has two drafts that were discussed in Orlando.

What is the USV?

> -  TERENA Update
> 
> Yuri Demchenko of TERENA gave an update of recent activites of this
> sister organization.  In particular, he highlighted the recently
> published reports of the ETINU Task Force, recent developments of Web
> caching, and the CHIC distributed web indexing pilot project.  

I've been trying to keep abreast of the TERENA projects. They are all very
interesting, and TERENA has a way of organizing its work, and its
presentation of it on the Web, that's very clear, very informative. The Web
caching projects, and also the projects on developing simple-to-set-up and
portable web server programs, appear to hold great promise. The CHIC project
is nothing short of brilliant, IMHO. All this work of TERENA's on Web use is
going to have a very positive effect for the future.

> He also
> pointed out an effort regarding testing multilingual email clients.
> He had a few samples of the reports in hardcopy and information was
> provided regarding where to find them online.  Check out
> http://www.terena.nl/libr/.

I've been peripherally involved in the multilingual project, collecting
information on available translation programs. There's been some discussion
on the other lists I participate in about the need for
translation/interpretation services for the increasingly international ICANN
and DNSO meetings, and, having been a professional translator, that
interests me. 

From what I gather, although there is a great need for not only web-based
translation programs for e-mail and other services, the inherent
difficulties of translation have so far impeded the emergence of a reliable
program. The best progress being made is naturally in the commercial sphere,
where there are resources for this work. However, even there progress is
slow. I suspect that nothing important will be accomplished in that area
until a more serious effort is made, uniting programmers and web developers
with linguists and mathematicians. The current paradigms and models for
translation tools are so far all based on print-media models, not much help
in the present context.

Another project that is being slowly (very slowly) developed is one I am
involved more directly in: experimenting with techniques for using the
Internet (e-mail, the Web, netcasting, etc.) as a support for live
simultaneous translation. Unfortunately, I have been dealing mostly with
people in the U.S. who steadfastly (and rather chauvinistically, in my
opinion) refuse to admit that serious communications on the Internet can be
made in a language other than English. I'm thinking of proposing a project
to ALCI, the newly-formed Latin American Internet consortium, if I am
invited to their next meeting in South America.

> -  FYIs to "Historic"
> 
> The bulk of the time was spent in details related to the document
> <draft-ietf-uswg-historic-00.txt> which is a first cut at defining
> which old FYI documents are obsolete.  Each of the FYIs was discussed
> briefly and the group decided whether to classify it as OK-as-is,
> Obsolete (will not be updated), Need-to-update, or
> Evolve-to-new-format.  The draft will be revised to reflect this
> discussion.
> 
> The suggestion was also made and accepted not to issue a new FYI with
> this information, but to update FYI1, thus following the pattern of
> STD1 always giving the status of the STDs series.  Then readers will
> always know to get FYI1 for the latest information on the FYI series.

Good thinking! A central point for quick reference on which FYIs have been
updated and when is very useful, and saves time.

> Also, the status of some FYI documents was not necessarily black and
> white.  Therefore, if necessary, some descriptive information about
> the status of an FYI can be entered in the updated document.  An
> example of this would be to point to the online version of the TERENA
> Guide to Network Resource Tools.

That's good logistics. Would it be possible to create an automated mechanism
whereby every time an FYI (or a document referenced by an FYI) were upadted,
the status (and perhaps also the date of the most recent update) were added
to the central index, in this case FYI1?

The TERENA guide, which has itself recently been updated, is a good example.
It's the best collection of links on network resource tools of interest to
users, new or experienced, that I've seen.

> - Future of the Net
> 
> An added order of business was a discussion of the suggestion sent to
> the list that USWG develop a new FYI that clues people in to how
> current work on various technologies will affect future network
> services.  

A good idea, I think. I suppose your referring here to, among other things,
IPv6 and Internet 2 (and perhaps the new routing schemes being developed
[one hopes] by the IETF)?

> Some discussion took place about how to narrow the scope of
> this document.  Should it stem from current WG efforts or from Area
> Reports?  Some folks thought that the document idea was totally out of
> scope for the group because it constituted advertising the IETF and
> that should be ISOC's job.  However, if the work was given the slant
> of educating users regarding unfamiliar standardization efforts about
> which they were curious, that was acceptable.  

I should think so. Anyway, the ISOC isn't publishing these things in a
format designed to be accessible to new or not-so-new users, so there
wouldn't be any real duplication of effort.

> It was unclear if the
> audience were general net users or IETF newbie's.  Also unclear was
> whether it would be one document or more, and whether it would be
> hardcopy, online or both.
> 
> Volunteers for "future" project: Chris Burke, Yuri Demchenko, April
> Marine, Ed Krol (will put input together)
> ========================================================================
> 
> Session 2.  Tuesday, December 8, 1999
> 
> The topic of this session was discussion of the revision of FYI 4.
> Ray Plzak had put together input into a draft, which was the starting
> point for the group.  The draft was <draft-ietf-uswg-fyi4-00.txt>.
> 
> Ray led the meeting.  He stepped through feedback he had already
> received, looking for consensus and input.  He also discussed a few
> meta-issues, such as whether the draft should have a glossary, what
> references should be included, and which voice (2nd or 3rd) the
> document should use.

Since I was one who thought the glossary idea important, I'd be interested
to know if (and how?) it's being implemented. My original suggestion, if I
remember rightly, was not to attempt to duplicate what's in the other FYI's
glossaries, but just to give references for further info on particular terms
in FYI 4 that lend themselves to a fuller analysis.

> Feedback was provided to Ray, as co-author/editor.  He will revise the
> draft once more and ask again for comments from the working group.

I'll be more than happy to comment, if it's posted on this list.

> Good progress has been made on this doc, so it may be at or near RFC
> by the next meeting.  Further volunteers were added: Chris Burke
> agreed to help with the glossary and April will add something for the
> security considerations section.  That input should be to Ray by the
> end of January; next draft will be mid-February and comments at the
> end of Feb.
> 
> ========================================================================
> 
> Session 3.  Wednesday, December 9, 1998
> 
> The topic of this session was evolving our publishing from
> concentrating only on FYI RFC documents, to expanding to online or
> other formatted documents.  We approached it from three points of
> view: content, format, and process.  It was a brainstorming session as
> this is a new idea, but the basic idea of the three points of view
> follows.

I think this is an important effort for the USWG, which needs to expand and
become somewhat more independent from the RFC work, that dependence having
limited so far USWG's ability to be useful to new users and others who are
not direclt involved in the IETF. Publishing online, in a format distinct
from that of the RFCs, should not only add to USWG's public, but give the
USWG a greater impetus to develop new and useful projects. I second this
effort, and pledge my support in helping to publish whatever comes out of
it.

> "Content" refers to what we write about. What information will be
> included?

Besides publishing individual documents, how about doing an index, a sort of
mini-CHIC for users?

> "Format" refers to how we will publish it.  Many in the group had very
> good ideas about format and exciting suggestions.  Some of them,
> however, were voted to an amorphous "phase 2" after we'd had more
> experience in scoping out the problem.
> 
> "Process" refers to the challenge of tying output from a WG to
> something other than an RFC.  This would be new for the IETF.

Do them good to expand horizons :)

> Longer notes with many of the ideas brought up in the group were
> posted to the mailing list.  Conclusions, however, included:

I must have missed that.

>  - start with simple online documents in html, linked from the USV web
> page.
> 
>  - later, the format can be revisited to try to both standardize it
> and make any other modifications that resulted from the initial
> learning process.
> 
>  - this work ties in quite a bit with "future of the net" discussion
> in the first session of the WG.
> 
>  - some overlap of audience between the traditional net newbie and an
> IETF newbie, so some confusion of scope there
> 
>  - if we want to address "hot topics" a good place to start would be
> the BOFs and their agendas
> 
>  - we can take a yearly (or other periodic) "snapshot" of the online
> information and publish it as an FYI.  This would also serve as an
> archive and versioning mechanism.

Good idea. Eventually, when there is a lot of information being published,
it might be useful to appoint individuals to have responsibility for keeping
track of specific areas of new information, who would become "experts" in
their area and serve as sources as well.

>  - use the format that is appropriate for the content, which is
> determined by deciding who the audience is and what format is
> appropriate for them.  In other words, we can use pictures now.

I like pictures. Spending my life as writer always staring at pages full of
words, I crave pictures.

> Content suggestions:
> 
>  - add the illustrations/diagrams someone suggested for FYI 4.

Yes. New users (and old ones, too) need diagrams. An awful lot of things
pertaining to the Internet have been allowed to become much more daunting
than they really are, all due to a real dirth of diagrams, flow charts and
other images to give visual memory something to grab on. In anything to do
with connectivity, for example, it seems to me that text should only be used
to explain a visual image. A picture, in what concerns the Internet, is
literally worth a thousand words.

>  - describe the groups that workwith the IETF and their relationships
>  - describe the IETF Areas and what they do
>  - new FYI 4 content
>  - explanation of RFCs and their subseries
>  - trends/futures of IETF/Internet work, understanding that the sum of
>    the parts of the IETF does not equal the whole.

Do you mean it's more, or less? :)

>  - more meta-level info that would fall between the WG minutes and
>    Area reports.  Try to get the ADs to capture and pass along more "hall
>    conversation" info.  Get an AD's update of trends, overlaps, shared
>    concerns re work, etc.
>  - even info relevant only to the next IETF mtg would be
>    useful. especially useful would be a synthesis/overview of the area
>    and its progress.

Again, I'd like to suggest that the people working on this take some cues
from the TERENA formats, which are very well thought out and very clear.

>  - need interpretation of info as well as a report of what happened.  Why
>    is that progress important?  Why should I as a user care?  What are
>    the broad goals of today's work?

As regards the work going on in IETF working groups, it might be a good idea
to ask the working group coordinators to write up a periodic short update
from the user's perspective. That would save work for the USWG, and be a
good exercise for the IETF working group coordinators ;-|

>  - be careful to distinguish "marketing" from "explaining" or "providing
>    info" re IETF activities.
>  - write mission statement for IETF
>  - when putting info online, make it accessible to people with disabilities
> 
> Volunteers from meeting: Chris Burke, Ted Wolf, Marc Blanchet, Graham
> Travers, Ed Krol, April Marine, maybe Ray when he finishes FYI 4.  (If
> I missed putting your name on the volunteer list and you volunteered,
> don't think you are off the hook! :-)

Note: Any discussion of using this mailing list a little more fully?

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:06:10 -0800 (PST)

Hi!

> What is the USV?

:-)  It's the acronym for User Services Area.  Guess they didn't want
to use just "US."

> to the central index, in this case FYI1?

Hmmm, possibly.  Although given the slow rate of updates, it might be more
work than it's worth!

> [one hopes] by the IETF)?

We didn't get too far on specific content, so at this point anything goes.

> in FYI 4 that lend themselves to a fuller analysis.

See Chris Burke's msg to the list on this.  I think in the review that
took place prior to and at the mtg, everyone agreed that the document as
it stood was someone jargon dense.  The solution we are going to take a
stab at is to first reduce the jargon and explain acronyms as we go along
(if they are necessary), so that most of the stuff is explained as one
reads.  And then also, as you say, include the User's Glossary in the
references.

> I'll be more than happy to comment, if it's posted on this list.

Yes, it will definitely be posted.  It is hard to discuss the state of the
doc now because the various suggestions have not been incorporated into a
new draft.  Once that is done, we'll have something else to shoot arrows
at!  Ray's got an agressive schedule on that new version.

> not direclt involved in the IETF. Publishing online, in a format distinct

Well, people often get confused here.  The original intent of USV was to
support user *support* organizations, not necessarily end users directly. 
This, of course, gets a bit hazy, but originally the RFC format was fine
for USV publishing because the support organization personnel were clued
in to look there, and they could take the info they needed for their users
and pass it along (perhaps incorporating it into other materials or
molding it in some other way).  I'm not sure this distinction is terribly
relevant now, but the "success" of USV in the past should not be judged so
much by its direct impact on end users. 

> effort, and pledge my support in helping to publish whatever comes out of

Thanks!

> Besides publishing individual documents, how about doing an index, a sort of

I'm not sure I follow.  What would we index?  The FYIs?

> > posted to the mailing list.  Conclusions, however, included:

Nope, not posted yet.

> I like pictures. Spending my life as writer always staring at pages full of

Yes, lots of support for pictures!

> good exercise for the IETF working group coordinators ;-|

It will be interesting to see how we get input such as this.  I think it
will be a challenge. :-)

> Note: Any discussion of using this mailing list a little more fully?

No, but it's a darn good idea!

thanks,
April

-------------------------------------------------------------------
April Marine			1-650-604-0762  --> me
GLOBE Program			1-800-858-9947  --> GLOBE Help Desk
(Raytheon ITSS)			[email-masked]
NASA Ames Research Center, MS 204/14, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
(and IETF User Services Area Director http://archimedes.nasa.gov/usv/)

---

From: Michael Sondow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 03:11:49 -0500

April-

I feel a little intimidated about copying the list after getting that
message earlier, but I'm going to do it anyway since you copied the list in
your message. I hope no one gets angry and sends me a nasty e-mail.

> :-)  It's the acronym for User Services Area.  Guess they didn't want

Oh. And USA wouldn't have worked out too well, either, I guess :-]

> Hmmm, possibly.  Although given the slow rate of updates, it might be more

Something for the future.

> reads.  And then also, as you say, include the User's Glossary in the

Sounds good.

> much by its direct impact on end users.

I see. Well, of course I have no idea of what it was like before, but it
seems that the USV and the USWG are really doing a lot of very useful stuff
for users, even just within the framework of the IETF support groups, by
helping the users understand how the Internet got to where it is. Then, with
all the new projects, it's a big help to have it explained in layman's
terms. But since TERENA, for example, has taken the initiative to start
active, creative users projects like the web services quide and the CHIC
project, that sort of urges us here in the U.S. to do likewise. I was living
in France until a few months ago (I'm in New York now), and the French
always told me they had a lot of trouble finding anything in English about
how the Internet works, outside the RFCs, which are pretty obscure and not
much cross-linked, especially from their POV. The same goes for the research
networks, which are much easier to use in Europe than over here, because
they're all linked together and have very convenient graphic deployment
tools. I'm not criticising, you understand, just saying that the door seems
to be wide open for initiating all kinds of useful user tools and projects.

> I'm not sure I follow.  What would we index?  The FYIs?

Oh, I was just thinking it might be useful to have an index of user-related
information from all the RFCs as well as the references in them. I know it's
very time consuming and frustrating for me when I want to research something
fairly straightforward and have to try and wade through tons of material
that I either don't understand or else isn't related to what I need, just to
find the answer to a question. Maybe that exists already, I don't know. But
I never could find an index of user-level info for the RFCs. Neverheless,
there is a lot of it. It's just hard to locate. FYI 3 and 19 are ok as far
as they go, but a users index to all the RFCs would be better. I was also
thinking of something more extensive, going beyond the RFCs to the tools on
the web, but I'll leave that for now.

> It will be interesting to see how we get input such as this.  I think it

A little arm-twisting might be appropriate. That's where it comes in handy
having a female as the coordinator. You can twist arms more pleasantly than
us guys ;-)

> No, but it's a darn good idea!

How about starting out with something like for example a circulating user
project idea file. Every time someone has a new idea, they could add it to
the file and post it so others could see it and comment. Then the best of
the comments could be added to the file, which everyone would have and be
able to re-post when they had a new idea? I've seen that done very
effectively. The brief translation programs project, or at least the part I
saw, was done kind of like that. I organized a research study group in
Europe (I was writing on virus immunology) that used circulating files with
great effectiveness. We could begin by starting a file called "Ideas on how
to use the list more effectively" :)