RFC 464 UNKNOWN ARPANET · DIRECTORIES

Resource notebook framework

A framework for coordinating the collection and sharing of network resource information.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
February 1973
AUTHORS
M.D. Kudlick
STREAM
Legacy
SUGGESTED INITIAL REGIONS
5
INFORMATION COORDINATOR
Network Information Center
DOI
10.17487/RFC0464

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                 Michael D. Kudlick
RFC # 464                                             SRI-ARC
NIC # 14738                                           February 27, 1973


                      Resource Notebook Framework


Introduction

The purpose of this RFC is to present a framework for coordinating all
the surveys and data gathering efforts concerned with "resource
notebook" type of information.

We have obtained agreement from ARPA with the framework, which is
described below.

    The scheme is designed with two purposes:

        a) to avoid a proliferation of data gathering efforts, which
        would overwhelm the sites and persons supplying the much-needed
        information;

        b) to give the responsibility to the NIC for coordinating the
        tasks associated with the resource notebook.

Two companion documents, NIC 14514 and NIC 14515 provide supplementary
information to this RFC.

    NIC 14514 describes the history of the Resource Notebook from 1971
    to the present.

    NIC 14515 contains the questionnaire that the NIC is currently
    sending to server sites for data on Network Resources.

A recent RFC by John Iseli and Dave Crocker (NWG/RFC #462, NIC 14434)
also addresses the same problem area.

    The proposed framework for data collection suggested by John and
    Dave is different from the framework outlined in this RFC.

Framework

The Network Information Center will coordinate the task of collecting,
verifying, and disseminating information of a "resource notebook"
nature.

    a) Collecting and verifying the data.

        Because of the magnitude of this task, regional data collectors
        would provide assistance both to the NIC and to the sites
        supplying the information.

            We think that initially there should be five regions:
            Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Mid-
            Continent.

        The regional agent would collect the information from the sites
        in their region and forward it to NIC for inclusion in the
        Resource Notebook data base.

        The NIC would work closely with the regional agents to ensure
        that the data is accurate and up-to-date.

    b) Disseminating data.

        There is presently a need to prepare different subsets or
        "views" of the resource notebook information.

        Regardless of which groups on the Network are given
        responsibility for preparing different views of the complete
        resource notebook data base, these views should be available for
        use on-line as the NIC as well as off-line.

A working group of persons interested in the needs and problems of a
resource notebook would meet periodically to review the situation, and
to make concrete proposals for improvements.

Discussion

We welcome discussion on this RFC.

I you think it is desirable, a meeting could be held at SRI-ARC to
discuss the whole problem area.

    If a meeting is desirable, we suggest it be held soon, say on Monday
    March 19, 1973, at 8:30 AM in the SRI-ARC Conference Room.

Please let us have your comments by March 9.

    You may contact us at (415) 326-6200, ext 3617, care of Mlke
    Kudlick.

       [ 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
PROBLEMMany separate surveys about Resource Notebook information could overwhelm the sites and people asked to supply it.
MECHANISMThe RFC assigns coordination of collection, checking and distribution to the NIC, with regional collectors helping gather information from sites.
THE FRAMEWORKThe framework had ARPA's agreement, but this RFC presents it as a proposal and requests discussion. The text does not report what followed.

§1Why Coordinate the Surveys

The RFC offers a framework for coordinating surveys and data gathering about Resource Notebook information. It says ARPA had agreed to the framework.

The plan has two goals: avoid multiplying data-gathering efforts that could overwhelm contributors, and make the NIC responsible for coordinating Resource Notebook work. Two companion NIC documents cover the notebook's history and the questionnaire then being sent to server sites.

The proposal aims to avoid asking the same sites for the same information through many separate surveys. It puts one coordinating role with the NIC.

§2Collecting and Checking Information

The NIC would coordinate collection, verification and distribution of resource information. Regional data collectors would help the NIC and the sites supplying information. The RFC suggests starting with five regions: Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Mid-Continent.

A regional agent would collect information from sites in that region and send it to the NIC's Resource Notebook database. The NIC would work with the regional agents to keep the information accurate and up to date.

Regional collectors gather information from nearby sites and pass it to the NIC. The NIC works with them to check and maintain the shared information.

§3Sharing Views and Reviewing the Plan

The RFC says different groups may prepare different subsets, or “views,” of the full Resource Notebook database. These views should be available online at the NIC and offline, regardless of which groups prepare them.

A working group of people interested in the Resource Notebook would meet periodically to review the situation and propose improvements. The author invites comments and suggests a meeting at SRI-ARC; the document gives a proposed date and asks for comments by an earlier date.

People could receive a complete database or a selected view of it, online or offline. A working group would review needs and suggest improvements.

§4References