rfc1210.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

   confidentiality of document parts.

6.2.3  Recommended Actions

   Hold a workshop to review the ongoing compound document research and
   development programmes in the two regions.  One aim would be to
   recommend services for deployment in the short term.  Another would
   be to propose work items in the NSF/DARPA and ESPRIT programmes to
   ensure a timely collaborative programme could start in mid-1991.

6.3  Directory Services

   White pages services to assist network users to find email addresses,
   computer services and other on-line facilities are, at best, only
   lightly deployed in both the US and Europe.  If networked services
   are to become infrastructural in nature, directory services must be



Cerf, Kirstein, & Randell                                      [Page 11]

RFC 1210      Network and Infrastructure User Requirements    March 1991


   widely implemented, deployed and easily accessible.  In addition to
   working with international standards such as CCITT X.500, access to
   the installed base of white pages services (such as the US WHOIS
   service and the UK NRS service) is essential.  These facilities are
   also needed to support key management for cryptographic services
   required for authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of email and
   other communications.  Because there are different legal and
   organizational views of directory service information, it will also
   be critical to address organizational and international differences
   in the sensitivity of such data and its accessibility.

   It is essential that directory service databases be built and
   maintained throughout the US and European research communities.

6.3.1  One Year Targets

   (i)  Get effective access to existing directory services
        (X.500 and others);

   (ii) Put in data for relevant NSF/DARPA and ESPRIT communities.

6.3.2  Three Year Targets

   (i)   Provide tools to support database maintenance;

   (ii)  Provide good knowledge-based navigation software;

   (iii) Provide strong authentication facilities;

   (iv)  Provide capability-based access restrictions.

6.3.3  Recommended Actions

   Initiate a formal collaboration between ongoing US and European
   (e.g., RARE WG3) efforts to implement and maintain the relevant
   directory databases.

6.4  Interactive Login

   Interactive access to service systems in the US and Europe is, at
   present, only partly feasible.  One inhibiting factor is incompatible
   protocol suites in use in the provision of such services.  The
   implementation and deployment of common protocols, and the provision
   of protocol translation gateways, are needed to improve this
   situation.






Cerf, Kirstein, & Randell                                      [Page 12]

RFC 1210      Network and Infrastructure User Requirements    March 1991


6.4.1  One Year Target

   Identify and install the best available interactive login software
   (using staging gateways, if necessary) on all interested sites.

6.4.2  Three Year Targets

   Improve interactive login performance to include support for:

   (i)   "type of service" (quality or grade-of-service);

   (ii)  support for privacy;

   (iii) support for authentication;

   (iv)  support for remote X-windows even through different protocol
         suites.

6.4.3  Recommended Actions

   (i)   Identify for which protocol suites interactive login will be
         supported;

   (ii)  Determine mechanisms for good performance in staged facilities
         (i.e., in which it is necessary to login and then open
         manually new connections from the intermediate gateways);

   (iii) Develop a cooperative effort on authentication and privacy
         support.

6.5  File Services

   File transfers are not easily achieved in the multi-protocol
   environment, and long files cannot be transferred reliably.  Manual
   movement of files through staged, protocol-translating gateways is
   awkward and often unreliable.  Performance of file transfer software
   varies substantially.  Improvements in file transfer facilities are
   needed, but there should also be other forms of file service based on
   shared file systems.

6.5.1  One Year Targets

   Develop or identify and install the best available file transfer
   software (providing staging gateways, if necessary) to support:

   (i)   Multi-megabyte file transfers;

   (ii)  Translation between distinct file transfer protocols;



Cerf, Kirstein, & Randell                                      [Page 13]

RFC 1210      Network and Infrastructure User Requirements    March 1991


   (iii) High performance and robustness;

   (iv)  Use of wide-area file systems, e.g., Andrew;

   (v)   Ad hoc sharing of sections of file systems across two machines.

6.5.2  Three Year Targets

   Develop (or obtain) and deploy file transfer services with:

   (i)   support for privacy, authentication and integrity;

   (ii)  support for automatic staging through several file transfer
         relays;

   (iii) support for multi-party access of selected portions of file
         systems across multiple machines.

6.5.3  Recommended Actions

   (i)   In conjunction with RARE WG4 and IETF, identify best available
         products for multi-hop (staged) file transfer;

   (ii)  Define and carry out comparative performance tests to select
         best available file transfer software, including checkpointing;

   (iii) Define and implement fuller multi-hop, multi-protocol
         facilities with automated staging, security and management
         facilities;

   (iv)  Develop access control models, policies and mechanisms to
         support collaborative file access by ad hoc groups.

6.6  Group Communication Services

   Coordination of collaborative efforts can be substantially enhanced
   through provision of mailing lists, bulletin boards and shared
   databases.  Setting up and managing such facilities, however,
   typically requires special knowledge and privileges.  Making it
   possible to set up and operate such facilities easily and without
   special privileges would enhance the infrastructure of support for
   collaborative activities between the US and Europe (and within each
   region as well).

   More advanced group communication services such as shared screens
   with voice teleconferencing, distributed publishing through
   electronic libraries, and various forms of teleconferencing, might
   relieve some of the necessity for face-to-face meetings, if



Cerf, Kirstein, & Randell                                      [Page 14]

RFC 1210      Network and Infrastructure User Requirements    March 1991


   sufficiently reliable and easy to use.  The prior use of such
   facilities make subsequent face-to-face meetings much more productive
   also.  Of course, time zone differences are a challenge to any real-
   time conferencing schemes, and are often the primary rationale for
   arranging face-to-face conferences which "force" participants to
   enter the same time zone for the duration of the meeting.

6.6.1  One Year Targets

   (i)  Provide administrative support for setting up and maintaining
        email mailing lists, bulletin boards and shared databases;

   (ii) Provide facilities for multi-site interactive blackboards
        including text, graphics, spreadsheets and program access.

6.6.2  Three Year Targets

   (i)  Provide intercontinental services based on more mature "advanced
        groupware" facilities including shared screens and voice
        services;

   (ii) Extend interactive blackboard to include slow scan video, voice,
        animation, and using international standards where feasible.

6.6.3  Recommended Actions

   (i)  Form a support/working group on the use of tools, standards and
        facilities for group communication services;

   (ii) Initiate collaboration on advanced group communications (e.g.,
        shared screens, distributed electronic publishing, etc.).

6.7  Video Conferencing

   Facilities for low bandwidth (under 1 Mb/s) interactive video/voice
   conferencing (e.g., packet-based) are, at present, unavailable for
   support of intercontinental collaboration.  Even two-party
   videoconferencing could be beneficial initially.  The comments from
   the other seven working groups showed a strong interest in the use of
   videoconferencing, provided the travel to the relevant facilities did
   not exceed two hours.  This should impact the eventual deployment
   plans for the facilities.

   Minimum facilities needed for video conferencing include at least 256
   Kb/s across the Atlantic for each concurrent conferencing channel.  A
   video codec, two cameras and three monitors are needed at each site
   along with suitable packetizing equipment if a packet-mode system is
   to be deployed.  There exists at least one such system in use in the



Cerf, Kirstein, & Randell                                      [Page 15]

RFC 1210      Network and Infrastructure User Requirements    March 1991


   US, developed by DARPA and used regularly for transcontinental
   working group meetings.  Another such system is just being
   commissioned (at University College London).

6.7.1  One Year Target

   Deploy two-party videoconferencing facilities in at least four sites
   on each continent.

6.7.2  Three Year Target

   Develop and deploy multi-party conferencing capability on a larger
   scale on both continents, to make the facilities accessible more
   widely to the collaborators with less travel penalty.

6.7.3  Recommended Actions

   (i)  Install existing technology at a limited number of sites in
        both regions, in line with the desire to limit travel
        mentioned above;

   (ii) Organize a workshop on packet/ISDN/ATM videoconferencing.

6.8  Multimedia Computer Supported Group Working

   The NSF has initiated an effort on collaboration technology
   development and experimentation under the rubric: Collaboratory.
   Similar research is in progress under the ESPRIT programme.  While
   the subject of the NIWG's discussions was designated as
   infrastructure support for the other research collaborations, we
   believe it is very appropriate to mount a collaborative programme
   among US and European researchers, which would enhance Collaboratory
   efforts and force both groups to come to grips with problems of
   supporting collaboration techniques across intercontinental
   distances.

6.8.1  One Year Target

   Harmonise the ESPRIT and NSF Collaboratory research programmes.

6.8.2  Three Year Target

   Set up a common, transatlantic testbed facility to support
   collaborative research programmes.

6.8.3  Recommended Actions

   Set up a workshop to study the needs of a collaborative effort to