Responding to user needs
A proposal to let network sites maintain information about their own services.
Iseli, J. and D. Crocker, "Responding to user needs", RFC 462, DOI 10.17487/RFC0462, February 1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc462>.
@misc{rfc462,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 462,
howpublished = {RFC 462},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0462},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc462},
author = {J. Iseli and D. Crocker},
title = {{Responding to user needs}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1973,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group Jean Iseli (MITRE)
RFC # 462 Dave Crocker (UCLA-NMC)
NIC # 14434 February 22, 1973
Responding to User Needs
INTRODUCTION
The ARPANET is currently undergoing a transition to an environment in
which network resources will be made available to a larger user base.
This emergent user base already contains a significant number of
terminal users not associated with a server site. Information relative
to network host services and access characteristics is needed to
encourage and assist new users.
To date, the Resources Notebook has been the primary outlet for efforts
to provide users with Network-wide information. A separate RFC, from the
NIC, discusses the past and current history more completely. In this
RFC, we would like to second the NIC's suggestion for the formation of a
Working Group concerned with User Information and Services, and we would
like to offer a specific suggestion for consideration at the NIC's
proposed meeting.
PROPOSAL
Many of the problems associated with the lack of adequate Network
information are caused by the many compilation steps. Too many resources
(most of them human) are required. In addition to delay, errors are
introduced. Part of the solution is to place the acquisition of basic
information closer to the source and make the source responsible for the
acquisition and maintenance.
The "source" is distributed around the Network and, therefore, the
proposal is to develop and implement a distributed and extensible
network data-base which contains the desired information. This
would require each server site to create and maintain an information
file locally and/or at the NIC. As a further (more down stream)
step, a mechanism to access these files could be specified and
implemented.
People at different sites would thereby be able to use the tools
most comfortable and accessible to them.
An interesting technical issue involves making the disparate
files accessible by an automaton. The NIC is currently
attempting to smooth out the interface between NLS and non-NLS
files, and this seems like a reasonable object for such efforts.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 9/99 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Helping New Network Users
The ARPANET was moving toward serving a larger group of users, including terminal users who were not associated with a server site. They needed information about which network hosts offered services and how people could access them.
The Resources Notebook was then the main source of network-wide information. The authors support the NIC's suggestion to form a Working Group concerned with User Information and Services and offer a proposal for it to consider.
New users needed a clear way to learn which network computers offered services. The authors support creating a group to address that need.
§2Put Information Near Its Source
The authors say that collecting basic information through many steps uses too many people, delays the result and introduces errors. They propose placing information gathering and maintenance closer to its source, so each server site takes responsibility for its own information.
The proposed network database would be distributed and extensible. Each site would maintain an information file locally and/or at the NIC. The RFC presents a mechanism for accessing these files as a later step, not a defined part of this proposal.
Each site knows its own services, so the authors propose that each site keep its information current. A later step would define how people and tools find those separate files.
§3Making Different Files Accessible
The authors expect people at different sites to use whichever tools are comfortable and available to them. One technical question is how an automated tool could access information stored in different files.
The RFC notes that the NIC was trying to smooth the interface between NLS and non-NLS files. The authors identify that work as a reasonable target for efforts to make the proposed information easier to access.
Sites might store information in different kinds of files. The proposal points to a shared access method as a problem to solve, but does not specify one.