rfc369.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 620 行 · 第 1/2 页

   1) Working groups should be organized to define problems which
   require the use of a significant set of the network resources.

   2) The ARPANET represents a great resource already, even with TELNET
   as the only operational protocol.  More effort should be put in
   utilization of what currently exists.  Two illustrative examples
   follow:

      a) By combining the resources represented by UCSB's OLS and UCSB's
         TELNET, user programs were created to sign on automatically to
         the various sites.  Thus a network user need know only the
         sign-on procedure for UCSB; all settings of local/remote echo,
         character/line at a time, upper/lower case, etc. are taken care
         of automatically by the pre-written user programs.

      b) Combining the resources of TELNET PROTOCOL, PL/1 subroutine
         calls to the UCSB NCP, and 360 O/S multi-programming, a group
         of students created a batch-fed command language in PL/1 to
         communicate via telnet with foreign sites.  This program has
         been used successfully to investigate file transfer (NIC files
         are regularly copied on 8-1/2 x 11" white printer paper, and
         cards will soon be transferred to I4-TENEX), interprocess
         communication (a program was started at BBN-TENEX to be used as



Pickens                                                         [Page 6]

RFC 369              EVALUATION OF ARPANET SERVICES            July 1972


         a subroutine locally; plans exist to initiate and monitor a
         chess game between BBN-TENEX and SU-AI), and data transfer
         (pre-formatted files of data have been transferred from UCLA-
         NMC to UCSB; UCLA-NMC will soon make available survey and
         measurement data ala TELNET PROTOCOL and through direct ICP!).
         Moe details of this program will be available in a future
         report.

   3) Documentation: A self-sufficient mini-user-manual (MINIMAN) should
   exist for each site and also for each function network wide, such as
   the FORTRAN compilers.  The MINIMAN would be similar in some respects
   to the resource notebook, but would be more oriented to helping the
   user run.  A site dependent MINIMAN would contain the following:

      Sign on procedure
      Simple file manipulation and editing commands
      Compilation and execution instructions
      TELNET access
      Brief (!) summary of programs and subroutines
      Direction on how to get help.

   Overall documentation of hardware, software and human resources
   should be more complete.  A documentation questionnaire should
   perhaps be circulated to authors of network programs, including the
   authors of Network Control Programs.  Merging information from the
   questionnaire with the Resource Notebook would facilitate the
   construction of a resource-location cross referenced index.  Such an
   index, perhaps on-line, would aid the network user in locating both
   software and hardware.  Whatever the final scheme, more planning is
   required to improve the user versus documentation battle.  The recent
   effort in this direction by Marshall D. Abrams entitled "Serving
   Remote Users on the ARPANET" (NIC 10606 RFC #364) is well timed and
   should be thoroughly considered.

   4) Finally, high level subroutine calls to each NCP, such as those
   offered by UCSB, should be universally available.

Community Spirit

   1) Networks have great though unexploited potential for inter-
   personal communication.  The communication resources (NIC's JOURNAL,
   NLS TENEX's SENDMSG, LINK; UCLA-NMC'S S_.MSG:C to name a few) are
   used today only by the proficient few, but should be utilized
   regularly by all.  Two symptoms of the current state of network
   communications from the group's point of view are that most
   procedural information was shared verbally in class and that many





Pickens                                                         [Page 7]

RFC 369              EVALUATION OF ARPANET SERVICES            July 1972


   problems in locating documentation were solved by a last resort to
   that old standby, the telephone.  Improved communications will
   stimulate cooperation on joint projects.

   2) Names and interests of programmers/researchers willing to
   cooperate on joint projects and corresponding "blue sky" lists of
   software projects should be maintained.

   3) A network NEWS and NOTES should be published to inform and advise
   network participants of new resources and procedural modifications.
   Care must be taken, however, to keep this document concise (i.e.,
   avoid "message over-kill").  Perhaps a one page flier published
   weekly would meet this need.

   4) A network consulting center should be created, perhaps at the
   existing NIC, which would specialize in non-partisan matching of
   network users to network resources.

   5) A strong potential of the network is in Computer Science
   education.  Being exposed to many varieties of computer systems helps
   the student/user avoid the narrowness of experience and opinion which
   sometimes exists in centers of learning and computing.  In this
   respect the TIP user is probably the most benefited as, for little
   investment in local resources, many styles of systems are at his
   "finger-tips".  Yet even for service nodes, the network represents an
   inexpensive extension to local educational resources.  Current
   efforts to tap the educational value of ARPANET should be encouraged
   and extended.

CONCLUSION

   Existing site surveys measure and evaluate the performance of IMP
   hardware, host hardware, and host NCP programs, but little has been
   done to evaluate software performance.  The UCSB EE 210 graduate
   students attempted a primitive first pass evaluation of network
   resources in the period between January and March 1972.  Out of this
   effort have come definitions and criteria which would be useful to
   other individuals or agencies in developing evaluation schemes on the
   USER protocol level.  To this end, it is hoped that this report is
   useful.











Pickens                                                         [Page 8]

RFC 369              EVALUATION OF ARPANET SERVICES            July 1972


APPENDIX A - Sample Student Questionnaire

ARPANET

   Grade Given:  A=Excellent                 Evaluation by:
                 F=Bad

   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   SITE | RELIABILITY| RESPONSE | FRIENDLINESS | # HOURS  | COMMENTS |
        |            |          |              |   USED   |          |
   -----|------------|----------|--------------|----------|----------|
        |            |          |              |          |          |
        |            |          |              |          |          |

                            ARPANET Evaluation

   -- Indicate % of your sessions which were in the following categories:

              %               State
         +--------+-------------------------------------------+
         |        |  Unable to Log in to any site.            |
         |--------|-------------------------------------------|
         |        |  Unable to Log in to Desired site.        |
         |--------|-------------------------------------------|
         |        |  Foreign site suddenly crashes.           |
         |--------|-------------------------------------------|
         |        |  Local site crashes.                      |
         |--------|-------------------------------------------|
         |        |  Trouble free operation.                  |
         |--------|-------------------------------------------|
         |        |  Other                                    |
         +--------+-------------------------------------------+

   -- Considering the performance of the local host, communication
      network, and remote hosts, estimate the mean time to failure of
      ARPANET:
         Mean-Time-Between-Failure=___________

   -- What was your total time invested in the ARPANET this quarter?
         Total Time Invested=___________

   -- Describe your overall experience with the ARPANET (e.g., rise and
      fall of personal interest factors involved, etc.).

   -- What suggestions for changes or improvements or new capabilities
      do you have to make to ARPANET hosts?

      (Use back side or other paper for these questions if necessary)



Pickens                                                         [Page 9]

RFC 369              EVALUATION OF ARPANET SERVICES            July 1972


APPENDIX B - Specific Sites, Grades and Comments

   The following grades and comments are based on the two to four most
   representative questionnaire responses for each site.  Reliability,
   Response, and Friendliness are averaged grades and reflect subjective
   criticism.  Total Invested time is the sum total of the
   experimentation times reported by individual respondents.  It is
   hoped that future evaluations might be more specific and complete
   than the current efforts, yet the value of these initial efforts
   should not be underestimated.

   Grades:

         A=Excellent

         F=Bad
                                                    Total Time
   Site        Reliability  Response  Friendliness   Invested
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   BBN-TENEX       A            A         A             71 hours
   UCSB            B            B+        B-            36
   SRI-ARC         B            B         A             75
   HARV-10         C            A-        B             14
   UCLA-NMC        C-           C         D             14
   MIT-MULTICS     C-           D         C+            82
   --------------------------------------------------------------

Group Comments

      Site:  BBN-TENEX
         Very popular site
         Doctor, life and chess are stimulating and easy to use games
         Operators are very helpful
         Account problems kept site from being useful
         BASIC is well-written and easy to use
         FORTRAN is difficult to use because of the many steps to
         create-compile-execute.

      Site:  UCSB
         There are many problems with old key boards
         TELNET diagnostics are poor
         Online help files are sorely lacking
         Graphics are necessary for full utility
         Operator would not reload NCP when down
         List of TELNET site names are not current or complete






Pickens                                                        [Page 10]

RFC 369              EVALUATION OF ARPANET SERVICES            July 1972


      Site:  SRI-ARC
         Good documentation exists on NLS specifics, but general
           overview is lacking
         Inter-console link is convenient and often used.
         NLS-JOURNAL is useful but requires significant training
         Online perusal is difficult at terminals with small display faces.

      Site:  HARV-10
         Operator is readily available
         FORTRAN is straight forward
         Easy to use editor
         Couldn't get operator to put BASIC on.

      Site:  UCLA-NMC
         Self-explanatory ABACUS program is not self-explanatory
         System often disappears
         Hard to get past LOG ON* without TIMEOUT GOODBYE
         Message system is well organized.

      Site:  UCLA-CCN
         Always up, but nothing can be done (HELP is not supported)
         When RJS is executed, there is no response until correct signon
         procedure is entered (spurious death indication).

      Site:  MIT-MULTICS
         Response is very slow
         Automatic logout of autonomous user is excruciatingly painful
         Text editor is very easy and helpful
         PL/1 and FORTRAN are easy to use.





        [This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
     [into the online RFC archives by H閘鑞e Morin, Viag閚ie 12/99]















Pickens                                                        [Page 11]