rfc1746.txt

RFC 的详细文档！

Network Working Group                                         B. Manning
Request for Comments: 1746                                           ISI
Category: Informational                                       D. Perkins
                                                             Houston ISD
                                                           December 1994


                    Ways to Define User Expectations

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This paper covers basic fundamentals that must be understood when one
   defines, interprets, or implements methods to control user
   expectations on or over the Internet.

1. Background

   User agreements are a form of acceptable use policy (AUP) are an
   implicit part of internetworking since they place parameters on user
   expectation.  They define the desired and expected behaviour of those
   who participate.  Everyone has one, whether published or not.  This
   applies to networks that provide transit paths for other networks as
   well as end sites and the individual users that use systems.  A
   better understanding of an AUP, and how to formulate one seems to be
   increasingly important as the global net encompases new  environments
   as varied as K12 schools and real-time systems.  AUP's are used to
   determine pricing, customer base, type and quality of service
   metrics, and a host of other provider services.

2. Components of an Agreement

   In defining your particular agreement there are three areas that must
   be addressed.  They are where you get service from, who your peers
   are, and whom you provide service to.  A good understanding of these
   concepts will make or break the policies you formulate.

2.1  Where you get service from

   Each entity gets its service from one or more other providers,
   either a level three service, such as IP transit, or a level two
   service, such as circuits.  The provider of such services usually has
   an policy in the form of an agreement or contract specifying terms



Manning & Perkins                                               [Page 1]

RFC 1746            Ways to Define User Expectations       December 1994


   and conditions of use. This forms the basis for the type of service
   offerings that you as an entity can provide.  If you get service from
   several providers,  all of them need to be considered in the
   formation of policy.

2.2 Who your peers are

   Are your policies consistent with those offered by your peers?  In
   many cases, the formation of policy will define who your peers are.
   It is important to clearly identify which areas you intend to reach
   and the community you wish to be a contributing, productive part of.
   Once this is clear, formulate polices along those lines.

2.3 Who you provide service to

   It is required that you inform those who use your services just what
   your policies are.  Without this information, it will be almost
   impossible for them to distinguish what to expect from your service
   offering. Without a clear policy it is possible that litigation may
   ensue. It is important to reflect community standards in the creation
   of policy.

3. Some Issues to consider

   IP provided services can be complex.  They comprise both information
   and communication.  In the formulation of policy it is critical that
   the policy provide for security and access to information and
   communication while ensuring that the resource use does not
   overburden the system's capabilities. These conflicting demands must
   be analyzed and a synthesis arrived at.  This hints a fourth
   component of an AUP, that it has a method to extract compliance.
   This is so site specific that further analysis will not be attempted
   here.

   Some items that should be considered in the formation of policy are:

        - privacy                       - morals & ethics
        - freedom of expression         - legal constraints
        - safety                        - harassment
        - plagiarism                    - resource utilization
        - indemnification               - targeted areas of interest
        - expected behaviours           - remedies and recourse

   This should not be considered as an exhaustive list but as pointers
   for those types of things to be considered when policy is formed.






Manning & Perkins                                               [Page 2]

RFC 1746            Ways to Define User Expectations       December 1994


4. Security Considerations

   Security and Liability issues are not discussed in this memo.

5. Summary

   User Agreements are here to stay. As the Interconnected mesh of
   networks grows, the choices presented to end-users mandate that
   provider/user expectations are clearly presented. Use of these
   guidelines will help create a clearer, better defined environment for
   everyone.

Authors' Addresses

   Bill Manning
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Don Perkins
   Instructional Media Services
   Houston Independent School District
   3830 Richmond
   Houston, TX 77027

   EMail: [e-mail]





















Manning & Perkins                                               [Page 3]

RFC 1746            Ways to Define User Expectations       December 1994


Example

   For further reference on some acceptable use policies, see the
   following materials archived in Armadillo--The Texas Studies Gopher:

   Name=Acceptable and Unacceptable Use of Net Resources (K12)
   Type=1
   Host=chico.rice.edu
   Port=1170
   Path=1/More/Acceptable

   or:

   http://chico.rice.edu/armadillo

   If these resources are not available to you, you may want to review
   the attached policy and justification that is in use by an NSF
   sponsored project on K12 networking. It provides a view on the
   thinking process and actual Agreement that was worked out for this
   project.

The Internetworked School: A Policy for the Future*

Barry J. Fishman and Roy D. Pea School of Education and Social Policy
Northwestern University

Note:

   The CoVis Network Use Policy itself appears as an appendix to this
   article.

Introduction

   The next five years will radically change the ways that schools
   relate to the world around them as global computer networks--long the
   exclusive domain of higher education and private industry--link up to
   primary and secondary schools. The Internet, a network made up of
   many smaller contributing networks, represents a powerful educational
   resource unlike anything that precedes it. Its potential for
   education grows with the establishment of each new connection.

   For the first time, schoolchildren have the means for simple, direct
   contact with millions of adults in a forum that masks their physical
   youth and presents them as virtual equals. However, just as the new
   kid in school has to learn new social codes and rituals to fit in,
   schools must learn some of the practices and etiquette of the
   Internet. Of course, the established denizens of the Internet will
   soon have some adjusting to do as well, with thousands (or millions)



Manning & Perkins                                               [Page 4]

RFC 1746            Ways to Define User Expectations       December 1994


   of new kids knocking electronically at their doors. Since the
   Internet was not designed with children in mind, many potentially
   difficult issues must be discussed by both the education and the
   Internet communities.

   This article presents a framework for thinking about some of the
   issues that are essential to making the initial encounter between
   schools and the Internet successful. It also presents an excerpt of a
   policy that embodies our approach to resolving those issues.

Expanding Access, Expanding Horizons

   For roughly the past decade, schools increasingly have participated
   in specialized computer networks such as the NGS/TERC Kidsnetwork,
   the Intercultural Learning Network, and FidoNet, as well as for-
   profit services such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy. The
   majority of these projects were conducted on networks, where
   teachers' or students' messages could not be read by anyone beyond a
   predetermined audience composed of other students and teachers. These
   projects made it possible for students and teachers to communicate
   with their peers in faraway places and pioneered some pedagogical
   uses of networks for computer-mediated communication and
   collaborative project work that will carry over to the Internet.