__________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ---------------------------------------------------------- InterNIC News May 1997 - Volume 2, Issue 5 FEATURE ARTICLES: * Secure Internet Administration and Competition in Domain Naming Services : a Network Solutions Proposal * The Guardian Plan : Enabling Authorization, Authentication, and Automation in Registration Transactions * The 38th Meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force : A Look at the User Services Area * MovingVirtual Worlds II REGULAR ARTICLES: * Calendar of Events * What's in a Name? A Graphical Look at Registration Information * End User's Corner - Classic Books on the Internet #2 - Architects of the Web : 1,000 Days that Built the Future of Business * Performance Measures: Stats for the most recent month EDITORIAL SECTIONS: * User Feedback - Tell us what you'd like to see in the InterNIC News * Letters to the Editor * Meet the News Staff * InterNIC News Awards and Recognition * Copyright Notice & Disclaimer * Other ways to receive the InterNIC News __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ---------------------------------------------------------- From the Editor by Hope Glass, Information & Education Services >From the Editor Open a magazine, read a newspaper, catch the 6 o'clock news, browse the web. The issue of Internet governance - how the Internet and its critical services, such as domain names and IP numbers, should be managed - seems to be on everyone's mind these days. In this issue of InterNIC News, we highlight Network Solutions, Inc.'s recently released proposal: "Secure Internet Administration and Increased Competition in Domain Naming Services." The proposal addresses the current debate over the creation and administration of new Top Level Domains (TLDs) and offers an approach to the issues that focuses on open competition and consumer choice. We encourage you to learn more about Internet governance and suggest that as a starting point you consider the NSI proposal highlighted in this issue, available at the URL: http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html Also, make sure to check out the following feature articles in this month's InterNIC News: Guardian: Enabling Authorization, Authentication, and Automation in Registration Transactions the fourth article in our series on Registration Services Moving Worlds: VRML II part two of our feature on this exciting technology IETF in Review a recap of the 38th IETF meeting held in Memphis, TN, April 7th - 11th, 1997 End User's Corner : Classic Books on the Internet - #2 Architects of the Web: 1,000 Days That Built the Future of Business Also, please note that this month will be the last time we distribute a text-only version of InterNIC News. Starting with our June issue, we will be offering the full-text of the newsletter via the web, in HTML only. Why? The number of hits received by the text version at our website indicated that the graphical web version was clearly our readers' choice. Also, we recognized that, as the newsletter has expanded to become a more substantial publication, the size of the file we were sending out via mailing list had become unwieldy for some of our readers. Although we are discontinuing the full-text mailing, we will continue to maintain the mailing list. Subscribers will be notified as each issue is published on the web and provided a table of contents along with abstracts of the articles appearing in each issue. Warm regards, InterNIC News InterNIC News, 5/97: From the Editor was last modified on 05/04/97 19:55:41 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ----------------------FEATURE ARTICLE--------------------- Secure Internet Administration and Competition in Domain Naming Services: a Network Solutions Proposal At the April 14, 1997 meeting of the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee, Dr. Donald Telage, Senior Vice President for Internet Relations for Network Solutions, Inc. presented a proposal for a comprehensive and practical concept for Internet administration. Network Solutions prepared this position paper in response to the initial work of the Internet Society sponsored International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which examined similar issues but ignored several critical functions of Internet governance. In this issue of the InterNIC News, we highlight that proposal. Quoting from Dr. Telage... "It is Network Solutions belief, that the Internet stands poised to make great positive social and economic change to our international community. But for it to occur, the global Internet needs to evolve through free-markets, with open competition and consumer choice. Further, its governing institutions need to be grounded in a simple legal framework with minimal government involvement. This paper outlines an approach which considers the key functions of Internet administration, encourages competition in the provision of registration services, and proposes a realistic structure for the transition of the management of all of these functions and services through appropriate, yet unobtrusive, government oversight." His guiding principles for evolving Internet governance provide for competition in order to have consumer choice. These principles include: Limit regulation Limit bureaucracy Minimize requirements Protect critical functions Establish legal sponsorship We encourage you to learn more about Internet governance and suggest that as a starting point you consider the NSI proposal available at the URL: http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html Regards, The Editor InterNIC News, May/97: Secure Internet Administration and Competition in Domain Naming Services was last modified on 05/05/97 11:59:15 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ----------------------FEATURE ARTICLE--------------------- The Guardian Plan: Enabling Authorization, Authentication, and Automation in Registration Transactions by Robin Murphy, Information & Education Services, and Pete Magoon, InterNIC Training Services Your domain name record contains important information that can affect your ability to use your domain name. Of course, you want to make sure that this information is accurate and kept current. But what happens when your administrative contact changes or your company moves to a new Internet Service Provider? In an automated environment, how do you prove that you have the authority to change such critical registration information? How can the InterNIC be sure that you are who you say you are? Guardian is a system designed to protect domain name registration and other information associated with domain names, such as contact and host records, from unauthorized updates in an automated environment. Guardian provides increased security for registration transactions and automates the process used to verify the authority and identity of parties involved in these transactions. We hope this brief overview helps you understand what Guardian is, why it was developed, and how it can help protect domain name records from unauthorized updates. Why Guardian Was Developed Think about your street address, your driver's license, your checking account. All of these items are important to you, and the records attached to these items contain important information that can affect your ability to function. Naturally, you want to protect this information. You don't want the post office or the bank to change your street address unless the request comes from you or someone you have authorized to act on your behalf. In the physical world, when we need to make changes to critical information, we use face-to-face encounters, handwritten signatures, photographs, and other concrete forms of identification to prove that we have the authority to make such changes and that we are who we say we are. Your domain name registration, and the records associated with it, also contain important information - information that can affect your ability to use your domain name. Network Solutions, Inc., the company that operates InterNIC Registration Services, recognizes how important this information is to its customers. The InterNIC also realizes that unauthorized parties may not always act in the best interests of a domain name's registrant, and that unauthorized updates to domain name records and associated contact and host records may be detrimental to an registrant's Internet presence. Consequently, the InterNIC will not change information in a domain name record unless the request comes from an "authorized source" - either the domain name's registrant or one of the contacts listed on the domain name registration template. The InterNIC, however, has always faced the task of balancing concern for security with the need for efficiency. The registry receives tens of thousands of domain name registration requests and domain name record updates each month. Automation offers a fast and efficient way to handle this large number of transactions. In an automated environment, however, the traditional tools that we use in the physical world as proof of our identity and authority disappear. The concepts of authorization - the power to make decisions and take action - and authentication - the process of verifying the identity of someone or something - face unique challenges in the automated world. Before Guardian, the InterNIC manually reviewed all requests to update domain name records because automation did not provide an effective way to determine if the request was coming from an authorized source. As the number of registration transactions grew, however, this manual process no longer served the needs of the InterNIC's registration customers. The critical nature of the information in domain name records demanded protection; the volume of transactions the InterNIC handled demanded automation. There was clearly a need to develop a method for automatically verifying the authority and identity of the people requesting updates. In response, Network Solutions developed Guardian to help domain name registrants and contacts update their records securely and efficiently. Guardian - Authorization, Authentication, Automation Guardian was developed with two objectives in mind: make the process of updating domain name records, contact records, and host records more secure and make the update process more efficient. To accomplish these objectives, Guardian had to reduce the possibility of unauthorized updates, provide a way for authorized parties to identify themselves in registration transactions, and automate the process used to verify the authority and identity of the people submitting update requests. To understand Guardian, we need to explore the roles that authorization and authentication play in the update process. Authorization As we stated earlier, the InterNIC will not update a domain name record unless the request comes from an "authorized source." How does the InterNIC define "authorized source"? The domain name registrant is the ultimate authority for the domain name and has the authority to update the domain name record. The contacts listed on the domain name registration template, however, also have authorization to update the information in domain name records with which they are associated. As you may remember from our article on contacts, ["The ABTs of Contacts," InterNIC News, March 1997 - http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/ nicnews/mar97/contacts.html] the contacts listed on the domain name registration template are individuals or organizations authorized to act on behalf of a domain name's registrant in matters related to the domain name. The InterNIC recognizes contacts as authorized agents of the domain name registrant, and considers a request to update a domain name record that comes from one of the domain name's contacts to come from an authorized source. The Guardian plan is based on this relationship between a contact and the domain name (and host) records with which the contact is associated. It is assumed that contacts, because they are authorized to act on the domain name registrant's behalf, will work together and act in the domain name registrant's best interests. Disputes among contacts or between a domain name's registrant and the domain name's contacts are beyond the scope of both Guardian and the InterNIC. Authentication We have established that contacts have authorization to make changes in the domain name records with which they are associated. With automation, however, we lack the face-to-face encounters, signatures, and other traditional methods of identifying people in the physical environment. How can the InterNIC be sure that a request is actually coming from one of the contacts? Authentication, the process of verifying the identity of the person submitting the update - proving that contacts are who they say they they are - is the key to the Guardian plan. Have you ever had to change information in your bank records? Typically, the bank requires you to submit a request in writing or show up in person before they will update your records to reflect the change. As the account holder, you have the authority to change information in your records. The bank, however, will almost always require you to provide proof that you are, in fact, the account holder. This process of authenticating requests increases the security of the transaction and helps protect the critical information in your bank records - for example, who is authorized to use your account - from unauthorized changes. Guardian offers three different "schemes" for authenticating contacts in an automated environment. Using a variety of technologies, including electronic mail, encryption and public key technology, Guardian offers contacts the ability to link their identity with one of these three authentication schemes. By combining these technologies with established procedures, Guardian helps to insure that changes to domain name records are made only when the change comes from an authorized contact. How Does Guardian Protect a Domain Name Record? While Guardian does help protect domain name records from unauthorized updates, it is important to understand that Guardian's authentication schemes are not attached to a domain name itself, or to a domain name's record. Guardian's authentication schemes are actually attached to the contacts for a domain name. So how does this protect the domain name and its record? Let's take a look at what happens when a contact becomes a Guardian. When a contact elects to use Guardian, he or she selects one of the three authentication schemes: mail from, which offers the most basic level of security and is the easiest to use; encrypted password, which provides a higher level of security but is also flexible; or PGP (for Pretty Good Privacy) which is more complex, but offers the strongest level of security. Once in place, the authentication scheme specified will be used as proof of the contact's identity in all of that contact's electronic transactions with the InterNIC. So, for example, when a contact using Guardian submits a request to change information in a domain name record, the contact's identity is verified before the change is made, using the Guardian authentication scheme specified. Domain name records and domain name registrants benefit automatically because Guardian permits a contact's identity to be verified with a greater degree of certainty, thereby reducing the possibilty of unauthorized changes to critical information in the domain name record. It should be noted that all of the records in the InterNIC's database are protected "by default" at a basic level. When someone submits a request to change information in a domain name record, the InterNIC's auto-registration system checks the email address of the person who sent the request against the email addresses of the domain name's contacts. If there is a match, the InterNIC assumes that the request is coming from one of the domain name's authorized points of contact - at least, someone who appears to be an authorized point of contact. The InterNIC then processes the request and notifies the other contacts of the change. If the email address used to send the request does not match the email address of any of the domain name's contacts, then all of the domain name's contacts are notified and the InterNIC waits for one of them to either approve or disapprove the request. If the change is not acknowledged by any of the domain name's contacts within 4 days, the request is disregarded. The Guardian plan offers a way to strengthen this authentication process and identify authorized points of contact with a greater degree of certainty. In addition to providing stronger authentication schemes, Guardian also has an impact on how quickly an update is processed. Guardian can significantly reduce the amount of time needed to process an update because Guardian's authentication schemes enable contacts to submit proof of their authority and identity along with their request. When the InterNIC receives a request from a contact using Guardian, the contact's authority and identity can be automatically verified, and the update can be processed immediately and securely with no delays. Domain name registrants benefit because important changes to critical information can happen quickly, and domain name records are kept secure and up-to-date. The InterNIC has always based the processes and procedures used to update domain name records on the concept of authorization. The development and introduction of Guardian added the convenience of automation and the security of authentication to registration transactions. Because Guardian's authentication schemes are attached to the contact and not to individual domain name records, the Guardian plan enables a contact to securely and quickly update any of the records with which the contact is associated. Guardian also facilitates rapid and smooth registration transactions by reducing the number of steps that are required, in certain circumstances, to authorize a change or update. With Guardian, domain name records can be updated quickly, securely, and efficiently. The Three Schemes The InterNIC realizes that not every one feels the need for the same level of security. Some contacts may not feel the need to use Guardian; as we mentioned previously, all records in the InterNIC's database are protected by default at a basic level. For those contacts who wish to increase the speed and security of their transactions, however, Guardian offers three authentication schemes. Contacts can select the scheme, and level of security, that meet their needs. Each scheme provides an increasingly stronger degree of security. Let's take a brief look at the default level of protection and each of the three schemes. No Guardian - Default Typically, contacts are registered when a domain name is registered - using the domain name registration template. This results in a contact registration that is not "guarded." By default, those contacts will be identified in registration transactions by their email addresses. Registration requests from those contacts are processed at a lower priority than requests from a Guardian, since they may require an acknowledgment authorization from another contact that is "guarded." While this default level of authentication and authorization has the least security and lowest priority, it is also the simplest. Guardian - Mail-From As a contact, the most basic way to "guard" your contact record and the other records with which you are associated is using the "Mail-From" authentication scheme. This method works the same way as the default method, but offers two advantages over the default "mail from": 1.You can associate two email addresses with your contact record if you use the Guardian "mail-from" scheme; the default "mail-from" only allows you to associate one email address with your contact record. With Guardian's "mail-from" scheme, your ability to quickly and securely update records is not restricted to a single email address; you can use either email address to submit an update and the InterNIC will still be able to verify your authority and identity. 2.As a Guardian, your requests will be processed immediately. Guardian - Encrypted Password (Crypt-PW) The second most secure method that contacts can use to "guard" their records is encrypted password, also known as "Crypt-PW." Contacts register a password with the InterNIC. Updates can be submitted from any email address - as long as the contact provides the correct password with the request, the update will be processed. This method has added advantages: 1.If necessary, the password can be shared (carefully) with colleagues to send registration modifications. 2.Your authority is not tied to your email address, so a change in your email address will not prevent the speedy processing of your requests. 3.Contacts can update their email addresses without resorting to manual authorization procedures, such as sending a fax. Guardian - PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) The most secure method available for "guarding" registration records is PGP. PGP, which stands for Pretty Good Privacy, is an encryption and digital signature scheme. Although no security scheme is considered 100% unbreakable, PGP is considered to be a relatively secure encryption scheme. This method represents a "best effort" technology for preventing other parties from mistakenly or deliberately requesting unauthorized changes in contact records or the records with which a contact is associated. With PGP, contacts generate a pair of keys - one public and one private - that are designed to work together. The contact then registers the public key with the InterNIC. When contacts need to update one of the records with which they are associated, they "sign" their update requests with the private key, and the InterNIC decodes the "signature" using the corresponding public key. As usually happens with increased security, PGP is also the least convenient method to use and the most complex to set up. In order to protect records using PGP, contacts must have PGP software installed on their local computers. If you are a contact who is associated with a large number of records, however, and you regularly need to update (e.g., monthly) these records, you may want to consider PGP as your authentication scheme. PGP offers contacts the following advantages: 1.The strength of the encryption makes it nearly impossible for others to forge requests in your name. 2.As with Crypt-PW, changes in your email address will not prevent your update requests from getting processed, and your email address can be updated without resorting to manual authorization procedures. Becoming a Guardian If you are a contact and want to become a Guardian, you will need to modify your contact record to reflect one of the Guardian authentication schemes. The first step, of course, is to decide which authentication scheme you need. The steps which follow will vary, depending on the scheme you choose. If you choose Mail-From: 1. Point your Web browser to http://rs.internic.net 2. Choose Registration Services 3. Choose Template Guide 4. Choose Contact Template, step-by-step 5. Enter your NIC Handle (if you don't know it, use the link to look it up) 6. Enter the email address where you want to receive the completed template 7. Click on your current "Auth scheme" (usually Mail-From) 8. Continue to fill in the form, making any updates needed 9. Add a second email address in the "Auth Info" section if you wish 10.After you've completed the template and it has been emailed to you, review it for errors and then email it to hostmaster@internic.net If you choose Encrypted-Password Follow the same steps outlined for "Mail-From" but enter "password" in step number seven. If you choose PGP : 1. Download or purchase the PGP software 2. Run the PGP program and generate your public and private keyrings 3. Extract your public key in ASCII armor format 4. Email your extracted public key to pgpreg@internic.net 5. After receiving confirmation from pgpreg, point your Web browser to http://rs.internic.net 6. Choose Registration Services 7. Choose Template Guide 8. Choose Contact Template, step-by-step 9. Enter your NIC Handle (if you don't know it, use the link to look it up) 10. Enter the email address where you want to receive the completed template 11. Enter PGP as your new "Auth scheme" 12. Enter your KeyId in the "Auth Info" section (you can use the command pgp-kvv to view your KeyID on your local machine). 13. After receiving the template, email it to hostmaster@internic.net And Finally, a Word of Caution... Guardian helps to protect domain name records, and the records associated with domain names, from unauthorized updates. Registrants and contacts need to remember, however, that no system is failsafe. Even the tools we use in the physical world as proof of our authority and identity - face-to-face encounters, photo IDs, and signatures - sometimes fail to protect important records from unauthorized changes. While Guardian provides added protection, the system does not provide a guarantee. The integrity of the individuals associated with a domain name will still play an indispensable role in keeping domain name records secure and up-to-date. And the possiblities that technology offers do not eliminate the need for communication between a domain name registrant and a domain name's authorized points of contact. The introduction of Guardian makes it possible to automate the process of updating domain name, contact, and host records without seriously compromising the security of the information contained in those records. The InterNIC hopes that domain name registrants and contacts alike will benefit from the increased security and efficiency. Further Reading There is a lot more to Network Solutions' Guardian plan than we could cover in this brief overview. To find out more about Guardian and the protection it offers, check out the following resources: Guardian in a Nutshell an introduction to protecting domain information written especially for beginners http://rs.internic.net/guardian/nutshell.html Guardian: Frequently Asked Questions What is Guardian? Why should I use it? What are the different levels of security offered? http://rs.internic. net/guardian/guardian-faq.html "The ABTs of Contacts" article number two in this series on domain name registration services http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/mar97/ contacts-abts.html "The InterNIC Guardian Object" an earlier article from InterNIC News with a technical perspective http://rs.internic.net/nic- support/nicnews/archive/april96/guardian.html GUARD-TALK the mailing list devoted to discussion of the Guardian scheme http://rs.internic. net/cgi-bin/lwgate/GUARD-TALK/ The InterNIC Guardian Object proposal (draft) the engineers' viewpoint http://rs.internic. net/policy/internic/internic-gen-1.txt PGP quick start a short list of steps to protecting your registration objects with Guardian/PGP http://rs.internic.net/guardian/quick-start.html PGP public key server registering your public key with the InterNIC http://rs.internic.net/support/wwwpks Encrypted Password Generator for use with the CRYPT-PW authentication scheme http://rs.internic.net/guardian/crypt-pw.html PGP and the InterNIC How the InterNIC is using PGP, where to get PGP, and recommended reading about PGP http://rs.internic.net/guardian/nutshell.html Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ----------------------FEATURE ARTICLE--------------------- The 38th Meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force - A Look at the User Services Area by Tom Newell, Information & Education Services The 38th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was held in Memphis, Tennessee from April 7th through April 11th. Locally hosted by Fedex, the master of distribution, this eclectic group of dedicated volunteers met to discuss distribution in another context and across a different medium - bits and bytes over the Internet and the associated protocols for ensuring their efficient, equitable, useful, and safe exchange. With more than 1100 pre-registered attendees, the grand Peabody Hotel became an amusing study in creative juxtaposition. Thanks to the jeans and T-shirt crowd, for perhaps the first time in its elegant history, the count of guests and laptop computers were near equal figures. The IETF crowd gathers three times each year to discuss the development of Internet protocols. Work is an important adjective in the context of IETF meetings. The meetings cannot be considered professional development seminars (though this does occur), nor tradeshows (no advertisers please), nor plain social gatherings ("geeks" in Graceland - need I say more). With an unofficial motto of "Running Code and Rough Consensus" the IETF is a loosely self-organized group of network operators, software developers, and folks interested in the technical evolution of the Internet. For further information regarding the IETF, take a look at their WWW site at the URL http://www.ietf.org or read "The Tao of IETF : A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force" at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html. The IETF is comprised of seven "Areas", each with a focus on a specific aspect of Internetworking technology. Applications Internet Area Operations Routing Security Transport User Services Within each Area, working groups are chartered to examine carefully defined problems in order to develop protocols (or agreements) for interoperability with an eye on open development. More than 150 working group and "birds of a feather (BOF) sessions were held, making it impossible to provide even a cursory report of the work conducted. Instead, I will focus on the work of the User Services Area Group, chaired by Joyce Reynolds of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [ see interview]. The IETF initially had no User Services Area though such a need became increasingly obvious as the use of the Internet expanded beyond the typical research and engineering community in the early 1990's. This area provides an international forum for folks interested in all levels of user services to "identify and initiate projects designed to improve the quality of the information available to users of the Internet" (see the group's charter available at the http://rs.internic.net/usv/). In general, the group does not focus upon supporting end-users directly - their goal is to sponsor work that assists those who do. Their efforts have emphasized the development of user information services by providing documentation information and distribution services for the Internet community. Documentation and guides are published in the form of FYI (For Your Information) RFCs (Request for Comments) with a focus on general information rather than protocol specifications. FYI documents are educational in nature and vary from "New Internet User Questions" to "Responsible Use of the Network" to "Internet School Networking". The complete set of current FYI documents are available at the InterNIC WWW site at the URL http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/fyi. The User Services Area includes a diverse range of active working groups who interact by mailing list and at the IETF meetings. Participation, like all IETF processes, is open to anyone with an opinion (of which this crowd is certainly not bereft J ). The table below summarizes the current groups and includes pointers to additional information, mailing list subscription instructions, and points of contact. Humanities and Arts (HARTS) From the charter: "In building a bridge between the Internet Engineering community and the Humanities and Arts' Research and Engineering communities, the HARTS Working Group has identified three goals to be pursued. The first goal is development of a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) regarding value and role of the arts in the Internet. Tasks for this include development of a document summarizing current issues regarding the arts community Internet with an accompanying survey designed to identify needs and concerns from the arts and humanities community. Survey results will be used to develop the FAQ. " "The second goal is to define tools for artists' organizations on the Internet which will focus on creating, viewing, and storage formats for arts humanities resources. This will include contributions regarding text, sound, still and motion images. It will address different operating systems, glossary of basic terminology and a bibliography. The third goal is to further define issues surrounding copyright and intellectual property, funding, and other support for arts humanities participation and any other needs identified by the survey. " Charter http://rs.internic.net/usv/harts-charter.html Chair Scott Stoner (stoner@artsedge.kennedy-center.org) Janet Max (jlm@ftp.com) Mailing List List: Harts@isi.edu To subscribe: harts-request@isi.edu Internet School Networking (ISN) From the charter: "The Internet School Networking Working Group is chartered to address issues related to the connection of primary and secondary schools worldwide to the Internet. The key audiences include network service providers and educational policy makers responsible for network access and use. The key areas of focus for this group are advocacy and articulation. " Charter http://rs.internic.net/usv/isn-charter.html Chairs Jennifer Sellers (sellers@lupine.nsi.nasa.gov) Jodi Ito (jodi@hawaii.edu) Mailing List General Discussion: (isn-wg@nasa.gov) To Subscribe: (listmanager@nasa.gov) In Body: subscribe isn-wg Responsible Use of the Network (RUN) From the charter: "Reflecting the needs of the Internet community, the IETF sees a need to create an etiquette ("netiquette" in network parlance) guide for Internet users. The working group will develop an FYI RFC on responsible use of the Internet and its tools." Charter http://rs.internic.net/usv/run-charter.html Chairs Sally Hambridge (sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com) Gary Malkin (gmalkin@xylogics.com) Mailing List General Discussion:ietf-run@mailbag.intel.com To Subscribe: majordomo@mailbag.intel.com In Body: subscribe ietf-run Site Security Handbook (SSH) From the charter: "The Site Security Handbook Working Group is chartered to create two documents: (1) a revised handbook that will help system and network administrators develop their own site-specific policies and procedures to deal with computer security problems and their prevention and (2) a new handbook for users. The text of these documents will be developed from the existing RFC 1244, plus needed revisions and additions. " Charter http://rs.internic.net/usv/ssh-charter.html Chair Barbara Fraser (byf@cert.org) Mailing List General Discussion:(ssh@cert.org) To Subscribe: (ssh-request@cert.org) User Services (USWG) From the charter: "The User Services Working Group provides a regular forum for people interested in user services to identify and initiate projects designed to improve the quality of information available to end-users of the Internet. (Note that the actual projects themselves will be handled by separate groups, such as IETF working groups created to perform certain projects, or outside organizations such as SIGUCCS.) " Charter http://rs.internic.net/usv/uswg-charter.html Chair Joyce K. Reynolds (jkrey@isi.edu) Mailing List General Discussion:(us-wg@nic.near.net) To Subscribe: (us-wg-request@nic.near.net) I'd like to highlight the current efforts of the RUN (Responsible Use of the Network) group. Led by Sally Hambridge and Gary Malkin, the group is authoring a document titled "DON'T SPEW - A set of guidelines for Mass Unsolicited Mailings and Postings." With a focus on providing for examples of inappropriate use of email and Usenet forums to distribute advertising and other forms of junk mail, the authors and contributors hope to provide what are common-sense approaches to communicating on the Internet. Interestingly, the authors deliberated and elected not to use the more traditional adjective for describing such communications, SPAM, out of fear of trademark concerns with the lunch meat. Better safe than sorry, though I suspect that the term has nearly become ubiquitous in Internet slang. While they recognize that the document has no enforcement clauses (the IETF is a cooperative and not a governance organization), it is hoped that ISP's and network managers may use the guidelines to both educate and inform their customers. In light of recent legislative with regard to unsolicited mail developments (the Nevada state senate has introduced a bill making unsolicited email ads a misdemeanor), this document may prove useful to organizations seeking to establish policies or guidelines for their users. Interested folks may subscribe to the RUN mailing list at the address provided above. Copies of the current draft may be found at ftp://ftp.intel.com/pub/ietf-run. Under the auspices of the USWG group, Jodi Ito (University of Hawaii), Sepideh Boroumand (NASA), and myself are working to overhaul FYI 4 (FYI on Questions and Answers Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet User" Questions). The current FYI ( http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/fyi/fyi4.txt ) was originally authored in early 1994, and it has been the consensus of the IETF User Services folks that the document needs to be rewritten to account for the changing complexity of the Internet and its myriad of new services. At the USWG session in Memphis, a working outline for an updated FYI was discussed which included the following major components: Questions about the Internet How does it work? What can I do? What if it doesn't work? What about security and privacy? Kids on the Internet - is it safe? How do I find out more? Is it true what I heard...? References Glossary Two themes stood out as important to the revision effort, "painting" a clearer picture of the Internet and the issue of privacy and security. An issue of some debate was the growing perception of many new Internet users that see the World Wide Web and the Internet as synonymous, a point well made at the meeting by Ed Krol, author of "The Whole Internet - Users Guide & Catalog". A goal of the revised draft will be to clearly differentiate between each more effectively. Given the growth of the commercial use of the Internet and rising consumer concerns with issues related to privacy and anonymity, it was felt that an entire section related to Internet security was appropriate. Work will proceed on the revision through collaborative, virtual channels. While the informational materials produced by the volunteers of the IETF may not have the polished look of traditional trade press publications, they are accurate, well-written, and instructional. The folks who give of their time to complete each project are strongly committed to the cooperative principals upon which the Internet has grown. I highly recommend taking a look at the FYI series and leveraging its content both personally and professionally. Each IETF meeting has a "social event" where folks tend to let loose their inhibitions and do something other than "talk shop." The 38th IETF meeting hosted the "Other Blues Brothers" for an evening of song, dance, merriment, and free video games. Thanks to Craig A. Haney, the evening was captured "digitally." Did we see you there? Joyce Reynolds Joyce Reynolds of USC's Information Sciences Institute is the Area Director for the User Services Area of the IETF and a member of the IETF Internet Architecture Board (IAB). I had the pleasure of chatting with her recently regarding her IETF role. Tom N. Can you describe the charter of the User Services group? Joyce R. The User Services Working Group of the IETF provides a regular forum for people interested in all levels of user services to identify and initiate projects designed to improve the quality of information available to users of the Internet. Actual projects themselves are handled by separate groups, usually through IETF working groups, or through liaisons with international organizations such as TERENA's (Trans-European Research and Education Network Association) Information Services and User Support. One continuing goal of the User Services Area is to coordinate the development of user information services by clearly and concisely providing documentation information and distribution for the Internet community. FYI (For Your Information) RFCs (Request for Comments) are introductory and overview documents for network users. Their purpose is to make available general information, rather than the protocol specifications or standards that is typical of other RFCs. FYIs are allied to the RFC series of notes, but provides information about who does what on the Internet. Tom N. What is your role as the Area Director? Joyce R. The work of the IETF is done in its Working Groups, which are organized by topics into several Areas (e.g., routing, user services, security, etc.) under the coordination of Area Directors. An Area Director is the manager of an IETF Area. In my case, it is User Services. The Area Directors along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The IESG is a group comprised of the IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the standards approval board for the IETF. Tom N. Beyond informational activities, does the USV work cooperatively with other IETF areas and if so, can you describe such efforts? Joyce R. Yes, we do. For example, the Site Security Handbook Working Group is chartered as a joint effort of the Security Area and User Services Area. It is working on a revised handbook that will help system and network administrators develop their own site-specific policies and procedures to deal with computer security problems and their prevention. They are also in process of writing a new handbook for users. We also interact very closely with the Operations and Applications Areas. The NOCTools Working Group updated and revised their catalogue to assist network managers in the selection and acquisition of diagnostic and analytic tools for TCP/IP Internets. The Integrated Directory Services working group is chartered to facilitate the integration and interoperability of current and future directory services into a unified directory service. This group also contributes to the administrativeand maintenance issues of directory service offerings by publishing guidelines. Tom N. What exciting projects are on the horizon for USV? Joyce R. There is a newly formed group called ETINU (Environment To Inspire Network Users). It is a joint effort of the TERENA Information (ISUS) and the IETF User Services Area. Its charter and focus is in developing a system to deliver enhanced user support via the network. The leaders of this effort believe we should be supporting, inspiring, and encouraging the user to make fuller use of the network to overcome their difficulties AND also help others when possible. A paper was written on this effort and will be presented at the JENC8 (Joint European Networking Conference). See: http://www.terena.nl/jenc8/ Tom N. Where might interested folks learn more about the work of the User Services group? Joyce R. On the IETF web pages: http://www.ietf.org/ or from the InterNIC: http://rs.internic.net/usv/usv-index.html. Tom N. Beside the User Services work you perform, can you describe your role as part of the IANA and the RFC editing process? Joyce R. I assist with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which includes the maintenance of the central registry of assigned protocol parameters for the Internet. I also work on the technical management of the editing and on-line publication of the Internet documents called Requests for Comments (RFCs). Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ ----------------------FEATURE ARTICLE--------------------- Moving Worlds, II by Peter Crowe, Information & Education Services The proliferation of animated GIFs, Macromedia's Flash technology, and the ubiquitous drop shadow look all attest to the widespread craving for "dimensionality" and movement on the Web. Each of these methods, however, are passive forms of movement. The user is left with nothing to do other than watch the unfolding lightshow. VRML 2.0 offers users a different world to explore, one in which the user is allowed to move amongst objects and actively interact with the web site. In last month's column, I introduced VRML at its first stage - the 1.0 specification. While interesting, it was limited to static objects, requiring the user to introduce motion by using the explorer functions of "walk," "examine," and "fly." VRML 2.0 differs from its predecessor by adding a significant amount of flexibility to the language. The major improvements include enhanced static worlds, interaction between objects, animation, scripting, and prototyping. The tools required to produce these interactive wonders go beyond the old method of manual VRML 1.0 entry. Most of the truly experienced VRML programmers are probably now using some form of GUI VRML help. Our tool of choice is Kinetix'sTM extremely powerful animator modeler 3D Studio MAX (http://ktx.com/3dsmax/). Because it already excels in both the worlds of animation and modeling, it is a natural choice to use as a VRML export workhorse. Some of the actions 3D Studio MAX supports in VRML worlds are the following:* TouchSensor - Select an object in a VRML 2.0 browser; the selection causes a set of objects to begin animating. ProximitySensor -If you need a particular action to take place after a pre-defined event, you can set up regions in 3-D space that trigger other animating actions. TimeSensor - This attribute allows the VRML creator to define and control when animation takes place within the scene. NavigationInfo - This action lets you specify initial information about how to navigate your VRML world. Background - Background helpers let you specify colors and images for the sky and ground in your VRML world. Fog - Fog helpers let you specify the color and range of fog in your VRML world Sound - The sound helper lets you place 3-D or ambient sounds in a scene. Billboard - The billboard helper lets you create objects that will always align to the viewpoint in the VRML browser. In this and next month's column, we will take a look at various parts of this more advanced specification, spending less time examining actual portions of code and more time building real worlds with bitmap textures, animation and 3-D sound. Keep in mind that whether or not your browser plugin (Cosmo Player, etc.) supports these functions is another matter. As in the last article, we recommend the use of SGI's Cosmo Player available at http://vrml.sgi.com/cosmoplayer/ as it is the plugin that we have used to test out our scenes. To make viewing more enjoyable for users with slower processors, we will be embedding more compact VRML windows into the body of text. Our goal is to present to the viewer a series of worlds which will explore the capabilities and, more importantly, the possibilities behind this exciting new three-dimensional world. Our final column will create a fictitious arena, in which the true benefits of this functionality will come to light. The first world we will be looking at is one filled with colorful bitmap textures that have been assigned to different shaped objects. Once again, I have to thank KinetixTM for the creation of this 3-D VRML Living room and the other scenes used in this article (all created using 3D Studio MAX). In this VRML world, you can accomplish all of the same things that you can with a 2-D interface. Hypertext links can be assigned to particular objects, which can in turn hold other hypertext links. In the following scene, we enter a living room with a variety of tiled textures (any image editor can be used for this task). [VRML scene] As mentioned above, the size of the VRML browser has been made smaller to enable more efficient viewing of data. To get the full experience of the scene, "right click" anywhere on the scene (if using Cosmo Player on a PC) and choose the "fly" option from the drop-down list. Because the viewer is actually "hovering" in space until placed over the wooden floor, it will experience a landing of sorts once placed over the floor. To test out the hyperlink capabilities, navigate your way towards the couch and align yourself at eye level with the paintings on the wall. Now right click again anywhere in the scene and change the viewer mode to examiner by right clicking on "viewer" and choosing the "examiner" option. Sweep the examiner ball back and forth so that all pictures can be seen. Place your cursor over each of the paintings on the wall in turn (but don't select them just yet) and watch as they turn to four headed arrows indicating a hyperlink. Also note that the URL in the bottom of your browser updates to the URL of the soon to be selected object. Now explore the actual textures in the scene. Note the realistic parquet-tiling pattern on the floor and on the frames of the pictures. The pictures of the torus knot, the teapot and the Kinetix logo are themselves all bitmapped images, allowing all the gradations of color and saturation that bitmaps inherently possess. Another nice feature of VRML worlds is their support of spotlights and a semi-realistic portrayal of the light cones. In the scene, we see two downward pointing spotlights casting light onto the Kinetix picture on the right hand wall. Each of the three pictures has a hotlink, but we will only concern ourselves with the two paintings on the left wall. At this point we have seen the realistic patterns, but have yet to explore the hotlinks. Navigate back to the painting of the torus knot and select it. This will take you into another VRML scene this time of a multi-segmented cube similar to the Network Solutions logo. (Note: at this point another VRML browser window will have opened up but this time, the entire window should be taken up with the VRML scene. For now, we will remain in this screen mode.) The best way to navigate in a window such as this one will be using the examiner viewer mode. View the cube from all angles and when you're done, select it. This should now take you to the Network Solutions 2-D web site. Simple VRML hyperlinks take the functionality of existing web pages and allow them to be implemented in a 3-D world more natural to our habits. In next month's column we will examine some scenes that utilize animation to capture and hold the viewers attention through direct interaction. * If you missed last month's column, it is available at http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/apr97/ * These actions are related as they are defined in 3D Studio MAX. Other animation\modeling packages may have other capabilities. InterNIC News, May/97: Moving Worlds, II was last modified on 05/04/97 19:59:09 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________REGULAR ARTICLE______________________ End User's Corner: Classic Books on the Internet - #2 by Jack Solock, Special Librarian Classic Books on the Internet - #2 Architects of the Web: 1,000 Days That Built the Future of Business By Robert H. Reid John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 357 p., with a 31 p. introduction by J. Neil Weintraut ISBN 0-471-17187-5 This new book, written by Robert H. Reid, an ex-Silicon Graphics (SGI) employee who now works for the Twenty-First Century Internet venture capital fund, is destined to become a classic book on the Internet because it tells the story of the founders of a new business enterprise. No matter what happens to these entrepreneurs, technical wizards, and content providers in the future, they have helped to build a business model for a new technology and a new age. Architects of the Web tells the stories of Marc Andreessen and Netscape, (http://www.netscape.com/); Rob Glaser and RealAudio (http://www.realaudio.com/); Kim Polese and both Java (http://www.sun.com/java/) and Marimba ( http://www.marimba.com/); Mark Pesce and VRML; Ariel Poler and I/Pro (http://www.ipro.com/); Jerry Yang and Yahoo! (http://www.yahoo.com/); Andrew Anker and HotWired (http://www.hotwired.com/); and Halsey Minor and c|net (http://cnet.com/), from three different perspectives, only two of which are effective. The first is the personal stories of "how they did it," presented as anecdotal interviews, interspersed with Reid's explanation and amplification. The second is an explanation of what makes each contribution unique to the Internet. These explanations lead into the third aspect, which is how the contribution can be exploited for business purposes. The "personal stories" aspect is the most satifying, as the reader is transported to watershed moments in Internet history, sharing those great moments with the people who made them. For months Andreessen and Eric Bina "work three to four days straight, then crash for about a day, " Bina being "the heart and soul of the code, " while Andreesen "[comes] up with the ideas" leading to Mosaic, the precursor of Netscape's Navigator. Mark Pesche wants to "teach [computers] to speak to our hearts' in order 'to make [them] clear to our minds," which leads to his pioneering work with VRML. Jerry Yang and Dave Filo build a graduate student hobby into a multi-million dollar business, but never forget their roots (days at a time in a Stanford University trailer, lovingly building the subject hierarchy that is to become Yahoo!). And so it goes. Such watershed developments take inspiration, dedication, and untold hours of hard work (at a manic, often obsessive pace, as the behind-the-scenes story of the actual development work on Navigator, told by Lou Montulli, show very clearly). They do not come cheaply or easily. And it is in telling these stories that Reid is very compelling. The second aspect, explanations of the technologies, is less satisfying because it is interspersed among the personal stories and the business motivations, and told at a breakneck pace. Characters enter and exit the stories at a dizzying rate, and the stories themselves are often told in a narrative style that seems closely related to that of a pizza and caffeine-besotted programmer at 3:00 a.m. Of course, depending upon the reader's expertise, he or she might find some parts of this more interesting than others (as I found the explanation of Yahoo! more interesting than the drawn out explanation of Java). That said, however, probably the most effective method of explaining a technology in the whole book is the comparison of Open Inventor vs. OpenGL code in the development of three-dimensional scenes. One doesn't have to be a programmer to understand what Pesce was after in creating a simple VRML specification. It is the third aspect of this book, the business aspect, which is, in the end, its lasting legacy. The title of this book tells all. It is "1,000 days that built the future of business," not the Internet. Because that, at bottom, is what this book is about--making the Internet pay. Here, Reid is at his best. Netscape's example shows that market share now means revenue later, even if revenue is not realized in the short term. RealAudio's rise demonstrates the power of laying one technology on top of another (adding a helper to a browser, and in one swoop, turning the Internet into radio). It also shows how to exploit this new medium to "nichecast"; that is, to use the space- and time-shattering abilities of the Internet to search out a paying audience (through either actually selling a product or simply advertising for one). Reid demonstrates that Java has the potential to replace desktop applications, and perhaps ultimately operating systems. VRML can, in the short run, create "stadiums and theatres" to be "online ticket vendors," and in the long run sustain lush, almost addictive interactive environments. The key here is to get people to go to the site, to draw in the users. There might not be a way to make money from it now, but the above market share-revenue principle will work, sooner or later. It is in the later chapters of the book that Reid slips the business model into high gear. I/Pro, with its demonstration of the abilities to use log files to audit site visits, is a marketer's dream. Now money making is no longer theory. Targeted advertising can really work. Yahoo! is much more than simply a directory service. By being the first "human" directory service, building a product identity and an ever growing clientele, it can sell a lot of specifically targeted advertising. But that is not all. Reid shows the genius of building ancillary services that feed into and draw from the main one. And so we see the business logic of geographically differentiated directory and map-making Yahoo!s. Here also is demonstrated the tremendous profit-making ability of cross-fertilization between media, with Yahoo! Internet Life and increasing exposure of Yahoo! on television. Reid explains, with respect to Yahoo!, that "...it turns out that giving away service over the Web has a real first-mover advantage to it. This is because success in this model is measured in traffic, and traffic on the Web begets more traffic." As the web has no inherent geographic or time barriers, the size of the potential market can be eventually equated to the entire population of the planet, the biggest market of them all. HotWired is given its due as an early and prolific content creator, but it also invented the banner ad motif; this, perhaps, will be its ultimate legacy. As companies realize the size and deep pockets of this new market, they will begin to exploit it, first through advertising at content-driven sites, but later by creating their own compelling sites. The ultimate logic of all this is played out in the c|net chapter that closes the book. Reid gushes over the genius of building cable TV programming and cross-fertilizing it with a web site. Without doubt c|net creates prolific and excellent web content, but what is really important is that viewers turn as many pages as possible. This in turn affects writing style (it is bad to ask a web viewer to read too much on the computer screen, because it is hard on the eyes, and only a limited amount of banner advertising can be viewed). And so the reader is given the model of the web page as "inventory." Keep those pages flipping. And even better, with the ability to audit views of the pages, future content of the site can be altered by what is popular with readers now. The web, then, is a dream come true for the marketer and the venture capitalist. It can be made to pay, and these pioneering entrepreneurs have shown the way. It is a city of gold! However, there is a disturbing presence that keeps popping up throughout several chapters of this book. It is Microsoft, competing against Java and VRML, with Visual Basic and ActiveX. At present, Andreessen and Netscape have gone into the water to give battle. Reid lauds this brave battle and wishes Netscape well. After all, the city of gold should be open to as many miners as possible, because they will keep very many venture capitalists in business. There is a poignant irony in the book in how Reid ends each chapter, describing where these great pioneers are now. Ariel Poler of I/Pro has left voluntarily, "looking forward to not being an Internet entrepreneur" (for the moment, anyway). Mark Pesce has no plans for a startup. Kim Polese wants to lead "many lives," of which Internet entrepreneur may only be one. Jerry Yang says "We started this with nothing, and I can honestly say I don't mind if we went back to nothing, because I had a great time." And Halsey Minor, perhaps the most hard-headed capitalist in the entire book, "regrets that what he does now is in some respects not as 'mind expansive' as the matters that took up his hours when he was a student. He enjoys business. But in the end, 'business is business. It's creative, but it's not, like, really creative. And if you get really creative, investors get worried, as they should." The irony here is that one-day Andreessen may come up for air and realize he has few or no allies to battle Microsoft with. What will happen to the golden city? This, of course, is the inexorable logic of capitalism, moving from an entrepreneurial, laissez-faire state, to an oligopolistic one. Reid misses it completely because he is blind to the dazzle of the gold. The fact that the Internet is now a "business plan" is assumed by many, including the author of this book. But the Internet did not start out as a business plan. Is the business plan model necessarily the best model to provide what the Internet has always been touted for: increased understanding through communication, and increased democratization as a result of its use? This begs an additional question: "Have we been here before?" Have there been other times in our history when a shiny new, democratizing, empowering communications medium was appropriated by the private sector, in order to make it pay? And if there is an example, what has been the result of this appropriation? Of course, the answer is yes. Radio in the 1920s was in many ways similar to what the Internet is now. It was at a crossroads. By the middle 1930s it had transformed into something completely different, something very similar to what it is today. And it is to radio, and the possible lessons that it carries for the Internet, that we will turn next. Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________REGULAR ARTICLE______________________ Calendar of Events by Ashleigh Dockery, InterNIC Information and Education Services May, 1997 Calendar of Events Connected Classroom Conference April 30 - May 3, 1997 Valley Forge, PA http://www.classroom.net/connected/VALLEYFORGE97/default.html Networld+InterOp Las Vegas May 5-9, 1997 Las Vegas, NV http://www.interop.com ELVIRA 4: The 4th UK Digital Libraries Conference Sponsored by: Electronic Library and Visual Information Research May 6-8, 1997 Milton Keynes, , UK http://ford.mk.dmu.ac.uk/ELVIRA/fullprog.html 8th Joint European Networking Conference Sponsored by: JENC8 May 12-14, 1997 Edinburgh, Scotland http://www.terena.nl/jenc8/ I2 - Internet & Intranet Expo May 13-15, 1997 San Francisco, CA http://www.shownet.com 5th Annual Conference on Datafication: Shaping the Internet for Business, Education and Community May 18-20, 1997 Great Valley Campus of Penn State University http://datafication.cic.net/rd5 1997 ASIS Mid-Year Meeting Sponsored by: American Society of Information Sciences May 30 - June 4, 1997 Scottsdale, AZ http://www.asis.org/midyear-97/index.html Human-Computer Interaction Library, Sponsored by: Univ. of MD Institute of Advanced Computer Studies May 30, 1997 College Park, MD http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/hcil/ Ongoing Events Classroom Connect Training Seminars Various Locations http://www.classroom.net/classroom/conf.html June, 1997 Calendar of Events 1997 ASIS Mid-Year Meeting Sponsored by: American Society of Information Sciences May 30 - June 4, 1997 Scottsdale, AZ http://www.asis.org/midyear-97/index.html COMDEX Spring '97 June 2-6, 1997 Boston, MA http://www.comdex.com Internet World Mexico '97 June 3-5, 1997 Mexico City, Mexico http://events.iworld.com 88th SLA Annual Conference Sponsored by: Special Libraries Association June 7-12, 1997 Seattle, WA http://www.sla.org/conf_meet/97.html TELECOMM '97 Asia June 9-14, 1997 Singapore http://gold.itu.ch/TELECOM/ast97/ Communities and Collaborations: Working Together for Technology Access Sponsored by: CTCNet 6th Annual All Affiliates Conference June 13-15, 1997 Pittsburgh, PA http://www.ctcnet.org/conference97.html WEB.X June 17-19, 1997 New York, NY http://www.shownet.com INET '97 June 24-27, 1997 Kuala Lumpar. Malaysia http://www.isoc.org 5th RIAO Conference: Computer-Assisted Information Searching on the Internet June 25-27, 1997 Montreal, Quebec, Canada http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/RIAO97/ National Educational Computing Conference June 30 - July 2, 1997 Seattle, WA Ongoing Events Classroom Connect Training Seminars Various Locations http://www.classroom.net/classroom/conf.html To add an event to the Calendar, contact Ashleigh Dockery at ashleigh@internic.net Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________REGULAR ARTICLE______________________ Registration Services Performance Measures for March, 1997 by Rich Landers, InterNIC Information and Education Services Purpose The following performance measures are provided in accordance with the requirements of Amendment 4 to Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742, Network Information Services Manager(s) for NSFNET and the NREN: INTERNIC Registration Services. Performance Communication Received by InterNIC Registration Services Type Number of contacts E-mail to hostmaster@internic.net 299,222 Phone 48,651 Information Server Performance Type Connections Retrievals Gopher 18,222 20,580 WAIS 36,532 15,926 FTP 90,868 178,451 Telnet 67,372 HTTP 12,855,124 WHOIS Queries Client Server 6,077,448 11,025,295 Second-Level Domain Registration Summary These figures are cumulative from August 1993 through March, 1997 Top-level domain Number COM 1,040,089 EDU 3,558 ORG 69,764 NET 64,684 GOV 585 Other 206 TOTAL 1,178,886 Registration processing time frames As of March 31, 1997, the backlog for manually processed requests was: Domains - 2 Days Hostmaster Questions - 1 day Contact Templates - 1 day Host Templates - 1 day Billing email questions - 2 days Faxes - 2 days Notify - 4 days Transfers - 2 days InterNIC News, Performance Statistics - March, 1997 was last modified on 05/04/97 19:58:40 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________REGULAR ARTICLE______________________ WHAT'S IN A NAME? by Tom Newell, Manager, InterNIC Information and Education Services Each month the InterNIC develops this column to share interesting, and hopefully useful, demographic information related to the domain name system and the registration process. We will include here in table and graphic format, indications of the size of the "name space" available for Internet trainers to use in curriculum development. In this month's column, we provide: + Cumulative Registration Numbers + New Registrations by Month + Domain Name Update Requests by Month + Root Name Server Information If a particular demographic would be of interest, let us know and we will work to include the information in future columns. Suggestions for future material may be sent to meter@internic.net. CUMULATIVE REGISTRATIONS The figures below describe the total second-level names from the Top Level Domains of .COM, .NET, .ORG, .GOV, and .EDU as well as the two-letter country codes. The numbers reflect the total registrations at that point in time. The number of active domains for the TLD's indicated is actually lower accounting for name deletions (non-payment, requested deletions, etc.). Information cut-off date: 3/31/97 Cumulative Registrations (0497) Mar-96 306,347 Apr-96 351,786 May-96 400,903 Jun-96 456,456 Jul-96 513,018 Aug-96 579,504 Sep-96 654,790 Oct-96 740,867 Nov-96 825,642 Dec-96 897,662 Jan-97 989,420 Feb-97 1,080,305 Mar-97 1,178,886 NEW DOMAIN REGISTRATIONS BY MONTH The figures below describe the total second-level names from the Top Level Domains of .COM, .NET, .ORG, .GOV, and .EDU as well as the two-letter country codes. The numbers reflect the total registration actions completed for the given month. Information cut-off date: 3/31/97 New Registrations (by Month) Mar-96 42,587 Apr-96 45,439 May-96 49,117 Jun-96 55,553 Jul-96 56,562 Aug-96 66,486 Sep-96 75,286 Oct-96 86,077 Nov-96 84,725 Dec-96 72,020 Jan-97 91,758 Feb-97 90,885 Mar-97 98,581 DOMAIN NAME UPDATE REQUESTS BY MONTH The figures below describe the monthly request rate for modification of information for the second-level names of the Top Level Domains of .COM, .NET, .ORG, .GOV, and .EDU as well as the two-letter country codes. Information cut-off date: 3/31/97 Update Requests (by Month) Mar-96 17,961 Apr-96 18,222 May-96 19,950 Jun-96 33,005 Jul-96 25,095 Aug-96 35,192 Sep-96 43,624 Oct-96 141,893 Nov-96 128,024 Dec-96 152,816 Jan-97 303,376 Feb-97 103,792 Mar-97 193,080 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy: (c) Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor is intended as a question and answer section for InterNIC-related questions of a general nature. Specific questions related to the status of a registration request should be sent to hostmaster@internic.net. Frances Arthur writes: Where do I find a name search and registration process for the .firm and .arts domain? Response from InterNIC News: Greetings- It will be several months before additional top-level domains are available. Please use your web browser to connect to: http:/www.iahc.org to learn about the latest developments or read Network Solutions' Proposal at http://www.netsol.com Hostmaster InterNIC Registration Services Voice (703) 742-4777 E-mail Hostmaster@internic.net Send questions and comments to editor@internic.net. We look forward to hearing from you! InterNIC News,Letters to the Editor was last modified on 05/04/97 19:57:31 Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy:(c)Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ GET THE INTERNIC NEWS by Hope Glass, InterNIC Information and Education Services The InterNIC News will be published monthly. You may visit the InterNIC Support Services Web Site (http://rs.internic.net/nic-support) to see the latest issue (http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/) and to peruse back issues (http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/archive/). The newsletter will also be made available in a plain-text version, for access at the InterNIC's FTP site (ftp://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/newsletter/) and for distribution via an electronic mailing list. To subscribe to the newsletter distribution list, you may either use our Web-based interface at http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/lwgate/NEWSLETTER/, or simply send e-mail to listserv@internic.net with the command SUBSCRIBE NEWSLETTER [YOUR NAME] in the body of the mail message. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ Meet the Staff of the InterNIC News by Hope Glass, InterNIC Information and Education Services Who's Who on the InterNIC News Staff Hope Glass is the Editor of the InterNIC News. She is in charge of all editorial activities of the publication. Ashleigh Dockery, as Event Coordinator for NSI, is responsible for coordinating NSI/InterNIC's involvement in industry tradeshows, as well as designing, implementing, and managing NSI conferences and meetings. Peter Crowe is a digital artist for the InterNIC Information and Education group and functions as a traditional graphic artist. He is also a PC systems specialist with an emphasis in software\hardware troubleshooting, networking and a healthy interest in 3D modeling and animation. Rich Landers is the Special Projects Coordinator for the InterNIC Information and Education group. He is also a regular contributor to the InterNIC News. Jack Solock is a Special Librarian with InterNIC Net Scout Services at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is regularly featured in the End User's Corner of the InterNIC News. Robin Murphy serves as the project manager for the 15 Minute Series. She also conducts community outreach and provides project management and product development for a range of InterNIC services aimed at the research and education community. She is a regular contributor to the InterNIC News. As Manager of the InterNIC Information and Education Services Group, Tom Newell coordinates all customer information and education programs, including Internet-based information services, WWW resources and tools development, research and education liaison activities, community liaison activities, electronic mailing list administration, and tradeshow, conference, and events planning. Tom also serves as the contract liaison for the Net Scout Services project of the InterNIC, hosted at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Finally, Tom coordinates project integration efforts for the InterNIC and NSI which have a WWW component. Carolyn Wilburn is the Information Support Specialist responsible for content development and production for the NetSol Newsletter, and is a member of the Microsoft Outlook training team. She also is a regular contributor to the InterNIC News. Agnes Tatarka and members of the web team provide technical and graphic support to the Information and Education Services group. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ AWARDS AND RECOGNITION by Hope Glass, Information & Education Services The InterNIC News has been the recipient of the following awards and commendations: * A Four-star rating and "Gold Site" award from NetGuide: " [****] " - see http://www.netguide.com/server-java/NGPage/ SearchBrowseResultsDetail?SiteApp.SiteID=84362 * A Looksmart Editor's Choice Award from the Looksmart Search Engine: * A "Way Cool Site" Award from Your Webscout Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy: (c) Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. For full copyright notice and disclaimer, please see Copyright notice and disclaimer. __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ USER FEEDBACK by Tom Newell, Manager, InterNIC Information and Education Services WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE INTERNIC NEWS? Our goal is to produce an interesting, informative publication that addresses the needs of the Internet's diverse population, both information providers and information seekers. Tell us what you'd like to see in future issues of the InterNIC News How can we address your information needs? We also welcome any contributions you are willing to make to the InterNIC News. The InterNIC staff looks forward to working closely with you to inform the Internet community about your R&E projects, technological developments, and user services. You may contact the editor of the InterNIC News via e-mail at editor@internic.net. In addition to story ideas or contributions, we sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions on how we can make this newsletter a publication that satisfies the needs of the Internet community. Please note that we can only respond to questions and comments that are acompanied by a valid e-mail address. Thank you for your input. Tom Newell Manager, Information and Education Services liaison@internic.net __________________________________________________________ / _/__ / /____ ____/ |/ / _/ ___/ / |/ /__ _ _____ _/ // _ \/ __/ -_) __/ // // /__ / / -_) |/|/ (_-< /___/_//_/\__/\__/_/ /_/|_/___/\___/ /_/|_/\__/|__,__/___/ _____________________EDITORIAL SEGMENT____________________ USING MATERIAL FROM THE INTERNIC NEWS Permission is granted to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce the materials in the InterNIC News, provided that the following copyright notice is retained on each and every copy: (c) Copyright 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. The InterNIC News and its contents may not be sold for profit or incorporated without the written permission of the copyright holder, Network Solutions, Inc. InterNIC News and its accompanying logos are trademarks of Network Solutions, Inc. This material is based on work sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement #NCR-9218742. The Government has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, Network Solutions, Inc., or AT&T. Questions concerning this notice or the material in InterNIC News should be directed to editor@internic.net.