===================================================================== Draft minutes ref. RSec(94)166 CCIRN Meeting Amsterdam, 24.6.94 held in Amsterdam Anne Cozanet on 20 and 21 June 1994 1. WELCOME Kees Neggers (SURFnet bv., President of RARE) introduces himself as chairman of the Euro-CCIRN, and welcomes everybody to Amsterdam. He announces that apologies have been received from David Macneil, Tony Villasenor, Peter Kirstein, Christian Michau, Enzo Valente, Glenn Ricart and Jun Murai; and that Bill Bostwick will join the meeting later by telephone, together with Steve Wolff of the NSF and Greg Chartrand of the US Department of Energy. Each participant then introduces his/herself (see list at the end of these minutes). Draft Agenda It is agreed that coordination of Russian networking activities as well as support to developing countries in general will be discussed under item 3 (other regions); that globalisation of the Internet will be discussed under item 7 as a separate sub-topic; and that the word "security" in Item 8 should be changed to "privacy" so as to avoid confusion with national security. The agenda is then agreed upon. 2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, BODEGA BAY, AUGUST 1993 A final draft of the minutes was circulated by Lynn Behnke on 7 October 1993, after which date Kees Neggers proposed some changes to the European report, a copy of which is tabled at the meeting. It is agreed that the minutes should be edited to incorporate Kees's proposed changes and distributed for approval the next day. The updated minutes are approved on Tuesday 21 June 1994. Status of Actions A1-8/93 Peter Kirstein agreed to find out who can update us on TINA. *overtaken - European ATM almost ready* A2-8/93 Barry Leiner and Simon Holland will write a paper discussing the subtleties of the meaning of the mission of the CCIRN and to subsequently review the Terms of Reference and Bylaws to make sure their research/education focus issues are therein addressed. *on agenda* A3-8/93 Greg Chartrand agreed to see if the Russian DOE plan could be circulated outside DOE and if so, to send it to Bill Bostwick for distribution to the CCIRN maler. *overtaken* A4-8/93 Glenn Ricart agreed to send the CCIRN statement on the IEPG to the IEPG co-chairs. *done on 26.8.93 - see statement at the end of the Bodega Bay Minutes* A5-8/93 The two remaining co-chairs will liaise with the IEPG on their position on multiple GIXs. *on agenda* A6-8/93 Tomaz Kalin will work with the RIPE NCC to create a position paper on funding the IANA as a top-level NIC supported by the (currently 3) regional NICs. This paper will be coordinated with the IEPG. *see agenda item 7* A1-6/94 Anne Cozanet to distribute the final minutes of the Bodega Bay meeting to the CCIRN and EU-CCIRN mailers. 3. UPDATE ON REGIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PLANS Europe (Euro-CCIRN) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CCIRN members are referred to Howard Davies's paper on DANTE's activities which was distributed electronically on 10 June 1994. A list of access points is given at the end of the document. Howard Davies explains how DANTE was established and RARE's role in this. France has no connection to EuropaNET: the French think there should be no monopolistic service provision. France was very active in the setting up of DANTE, but has now pulled out; they are active in EBONE. DANTE and EBONE agreed to an interconnection of 512 kb as from 1st July 1994. Kees draws a chart of the situation with EuropaNET, EBONE, NORDUnet and JANET, and their links to the US. Barry Leiner suggests that it would be a good idea to maintain such a map and make it available publicly. Howard further reports that DANTE has been awarded a contract by the European Commission for a 34 Mbps project, the EuroCAIRN (see item 5 of Howard's paper mentioned above). DANTE will also make a proposal on how the funding is going to be organised; work should be completed by the end of 94. DANTE's proposal will have to include an ATM plan. Simon Holland presents the 4th Framework Telematics programme of the EC; he reports that a White Paper, which aims at combatting the recession and includes a section on research and technical development, will be tabled at the Corfu conference next week. The idea is to get funding from industry, including PTOs. This seems to be taken rather seriously by the European Union (Simon had to prepare a briefing paper on this issue for Jacques Delors to take to Corfu). A2-6/94 Simon Holland will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of the documents which non-Europeans should read in order to obtain a general idea of what is happening within the 4th Framework Telematics programme. Anybody interested in the 4th Framework can also consult
"upturn". Kees Neggers reports on the forthcoming merger of RARE and EARN which is scheduled for October 1994. North America (NACCIRN) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tabled papers: NACCIRN/FNC Issues FNC Progress Report NREN Level 1 Milestones Walter Wiebe gives a report on the FNC. Grant Miller reports for NASA showing slides of the NASA science internet domestic backbone and international connections, specifically the Tokyo area. There are a number of ATM prototype testbeds in the US and they would like to cooperate with international ATMs. See copy of NREN Level 1 Milestones. As well as ATM, they also have SMDS and ISDN. Barry Leiner remarks that ATM was never designed to become _the_ end to end technology, which is what some people seem to believe. This could bring problems of interoperability and service. Kees Neggers notes however that progress in this area should not be impeded. Steve Wolff, Bill Bostwick and Greg Chartrand join the meeting by telephone. The main point of discussion is devoted to the changes in NSF architecture and their consequences for the international connectivity. Steve Wolf reports on the time schedule of the changes: - - One expects to start moving the regional service providers to NAPs in August. The transition should be finished by the end of October 1994. - - VBNS should be operational at the beginning of 1995 - - present NSF service will be active till the end of April 1995. Discussions with some of the "regionals" is still going on, but most contracts for service provision have left Steve's office. Service providers will exchange traffic at NAPs. There is no AUP at the NAPs. If the model or implementation is inadequate, it will change or NAPs will have no traffic. The international traffic will have to be present at the NAPs. One could connect FIX East to the appropriate NAP. Since we have now GIX, FIX and NAPs close to each other on the East Coast, we will have to economise. The best solution is to bring international traffic to the NAPs. The carriers have to move R&D traffic and it is assumed that carriers will be happy to exchange traffic with Europe and others. One will have to negotiate with the carriers. It has been proposed that the three NAP managers (Pacbell, Ameritech and Sprint) help with negotiations with the regional carriers. Steve Wolff will provide addresses and contact persons to the CCIRN list within one week, as soon as data are available. It should be clear that VBNS can only carry traffic that needs the applications and the speed of VBNS, and will not be allowed to carry general traffic between the Californian and N.Y. NAPs. A3-6/94 Steve Wolff will put a list of contact names and addresses for NAPs on the CCIRN mailer. To the question whether the international situation will be very changed in the new circumstances, Steve answers that there will be no change of the NSF policy with regards to international R&D traffic. He points out that the cost of transatlantic lines will be carried by the scientific community.. NSF will not be able to fund unlimited demand for line capacity. This should be understood, but the common wish is that the services are preserved. After a discussion on the mechanisms to secure controlled transition, it is agreed that IEPG and CCIRN (or possibly a WG established for this purpose) are the main players in the exercise. Other agencies have not decided yet how to handle the international communications: this may be a problem, since for instance Europe connects to a number of them. Greg Chartrand, representing ESNet, comments that they are considering a new mechanism for co-financing the trans-Atlantic lines, by purchasing some service from DANTE to reach their European customers. There may be a problem with different procurement rules in USA and Europe. Amongst others, a number of open issues are identified: - - One has not yet discussed how to handle in the future the traffic that uses mission oriented lines to cross the Atlantic, but has infrastructural character and is today forwarded to NSFnet. - - As far as the "Fat Pipe" (to UK) is concerned, the sponsors for the hard multiplexed channels will have to decide on the continuation. The infrastructural part will be treated as discussed before. - - There is no decision how to deal with the management of higher level (application) management. Fernando Liello reports on the ESNet situation. For historical reasons, two European countries (Italy, Germany) have links across the Atlantic to ESnet. As of september both links will be T1 lines connected to Princeton. Traffic will go partly to ESNet, partly to FIX East. This will have organisational, structural and financial implications which should be clarified. Barry Leiner suggests that there is a need for coordination of infrastructure on a global level, but not through a single body. NASA and DoE, for example, operate from very different perspectives and therefore cannot rely on a single body, although there is an overlap between NASA and DoE which could be satisfied by a single entity. Barry says that in the case of US providers connecting regionals to the NAPs, the condition in which they are allowed to do so is by agreement with other service providers. The benefits for those are sufficient enough, so that this is no issue. However, both Walter and Barry will take this back to their agencies. A4-6/94 Barry Leiner will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of documents relevant to the recently released ARPA White Paper on national information infrastructure. Information on this subject can also be obtained from WWW . CANADA Vincent Taylor reports that not much has changed in the overall philosophy of the network; they are just trying to get more services. One important issue on the Defence research side is the fact that they have obtained approval from the Federal Council to take their main link directly to FIX East, which should happen within 3 to 4 months. Asia and Pacific (APCCIRN) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kilnam Chon reports on the recent set-up of the APNG = Asia Pacific Networking Group, a mechanism to enable the Asia Pacific region to participate more actively in IETF. The APNG working groups are the following: - - commercial services - - developing countries - - internationalisation - - organisation - - workshop/seminars - - information infrastructure (proposal just received) The APNG will hold two general meetings per year. Kilnam then gives a general overview of recent happenings: new members (Philippines, Indonesia); high speed networking and collaboration in Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan; new links to Europe every two or three months (Japan-Germany 512 kb; Korea-London will be 64 kb); and intra-Asian links. See APCCIRN connectivity map distributed at the meeting. Shigeki Goto gives a status report on the Japan APNIC Pilot (see copies of his slides tabled at the meeting). There are now 27 members from 12 countries; authoritative delegation for 202 and 203; operation of NIC services: Whois (JPNIC), WWW (KRNIC), DNS (AUNIC), Gopher (TWNIC), X.500 (JPNIC) and FTP (JPNIC). Unresolved issues include guidelines for establishing national NICs, further service delegations and especially funding. Takayasu Matsuzaki reports on the Inter-Ministry Coordination (JPN). See copies of his slides distributed at the meeting. The coordinating function of the JPN carried out a survey and their recommendation was submitted today (20 June) to the National Science Board which is chaired by the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Hata. A budget plan will be submitted on 24 June (+/- 11 million USD). Professor Asano and Dr. Goto are both partipating in this project. Michelle Chiang reports on the developments in Singapore (see her status report distributed at the meeting). She adds that there are plans for commercial internet providers for the general public. S. Ramakrishnan reports on the developments within ERnet. 300 institutions are now connected. Other regions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Rob Blokzijl informs the meeting that NATO is organising an advanced networking seminar in Moscow for next September, as a follow-up to the Budapest workshop held in October 1993. NATO is going to invite the European Commission; Simon Holland suggests that this invitation should go to DG1. The Russian situation is rather different from the Central and Eastern European one, which is already organised in CEEnet (international member of RARE). There is a definite need for coordination in the former Soviet Union but this is beyond the capabilities of DANTE. Vincent Taylor reports on recent developments within the ICB. A meeting is scheduled to take place in July during which Peter Kirstein will report on INET'94. The ICB has been a facilitator of coordination between Canada and the UK on two projects, one of which carried out by MoD has resulted in an association of companies such as DEC, IBM, Novell, etc... which is encouraging. The ICB is still alive and well, its main concern is of course security; there is talk of a physical site at NATO HQ in Brussels. A fax was received from Christian Michau and distributed to the participants. This fax gives a status report on RIO (Reseau Inter-tropical d'Ordinateurs), an international network of electronic communication which contributes to the development of the Internet. It was initiated by ORSTOM, the French Institute of scientific research for development in cooperation. In Africa, RIOnet links presently 25 UNIX hosts in 10 countries giving about 80 access points (standard terminals or local uucp nodes). Kees Neggers suggests that the CCIRN would welcome representation from Africa. He will check with Christian Michau whether RIO is an appropriate body. A5-6/94 Kees Neggers to check with Christian Michau whether RIO is an appropriate body to participate in the CCIRN. 4. IEPG LIAISON Barry Leiner expresses the opinion that, in order to continue, the CCIRN needs regular feed-back from the IEPG. Steve Wolff reports that Elise Gerich is going to chair the IEPG. Rob Blokzijl reports that a policy based routing agreement was reached in Prague between MERIT, ISI and the Europeans. This is in relation with PRIDE. Kees's feeling is that IEPG co-chairs are willing to attend CCIRN meetings and that we should encourage this participation. Europe has to find a replacement for Bernhard Stockman. A6-6/94 CCIRN should take a closer look into IEPG activities; IEPG progress reports and results should be distributed on the CCIRN mailer. 5. NAPs, GIXs and D-GIXs Kees Neggers reports that the idea of a single GIX has been overtaken and that we have to face the idea of a multiple connect points situation. With regards to the D-GIX, he is concerned about the fact that those engineers are isolating themselves and not being open about the progress of the project. This fact should be communicated to all GIX coordinators; unfortunately, there are no IEPG representatives present at this meeting. Steve Wolff adds that NAP managers should also be as open as possible. (see NSF slides for NAPs situation). 6. INTERCONTINENTAL COSTS There are plans for high speed networking in Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan (a working group has just been set up in AP); in Europe by DANTE; and in the US by NSF, ARPA and NASA. Piloting is starting next week in Europe. Shoichiro Asano shows slides of the High Performance Infrastructure and Applications at SINET. Barry Leiner asks round the table whether there might be anything the CCIRN could do to facilitate the reduction of tariffs for R&D. Simon Holland does not think so, but suggests there is scope for negotiation at higher level, through agreements for experiments with operators, for example. NSF and NASA are interested in this. Kees Neggers asks whether the VBNS system can be connected to the rest of the world. Steve Wolff replies that it was meant for ATM services and that MCI are active in this. Either MCI or NSF can be contacted on this subject. The question of commercial networks using EuropaNET is discussed. There seems to be a gradual evolution globally towards AUP free. Howard Davies draws a status of European connections as per July 1994 on the flipover. He offers to produce a postscript of the chart and announce its availability on the mailer. A7-6/94 Tomaz Kalin and Howard Davies to prepare and maintain a chart of European connections both within Europe and to the rest of the world, and announce its URL to the CCIRN mailer. 7. ROLE OF THE CCIRN Barry Leiner and Simon Holland produced some slides in advance of their written paper, as follows: o Intro/Background - - Importance of continued networking services to the Research and Education Community; - - Related other bodies: IEPG Commercial + other service providers IAB/IETF/ISOC o Role of CCIRN Forum for information exchange - - Exchange of status and plans - - Identification of critical issues needing global resolution - - Identification of common interests in future services and associated research - - Development of common frameworks for resolution of these issues. o Examples of Topics of Discussion - - Requirements for intercontinental links and coordinating their establishment and funding; - - Identification of required global directory services and agreeing on core global functions. Establishment and funding; - - Identification of needed global information services for Research and Education community (eg., WWW) and establishment and funding of core global services; - - Exploration of role of ATM in future Research and Education network service provision. Identifying potential joint validation exercises. o Membership - - CCIRN is a forum for organisations concerned with policy and management issues surrounding provision of network services for the Research and Education Community; - - Attendees represent those organisations on regional basis; - - CCIRN invites observers and guests to participate on an issue basis. Barry Leiner says that he was not sure he would come to this meeting since he did not represent the IAB any longer, but ARPA encouraged him to do so. Barry asks the other participants whether they also feel that their organisations, like ARPA, consider participation in CCIRN as important. Barry also asks the participants to comment on the slides, paying particular attention to the choice of words and phrasing. A8-6/94 Simon Holland and Barry Leiner to write their paper on the role of the CCIRN and distribute it on the mailer. This paper should include guidelines to the regions on how to select their CCIRN representatives. Kees Neggers, summing up the presentation, says that not much has changed in the way the CCIRN perceives itself, except maybe for a slight change of focus towards information services, which had already been agreed. This obviously confirms that the CCIRN is still worthwhile. Everybody agrees that it is useful to reassess this at each meeting. The CCIRN does not feel that rules and procedures are needed. Kilnam Chon remarks that things have actually changed since the set- up of the CCIRN: the ISOC was created, the IEPG split from the CCIRN at the last meeting, the commercial internet is developing... He is concerned that the CCIRN's focus seems to shift away from services, that CCIRN is not yet entirely global and might be too restricted to R&D. Barry Leiner agrees that some areas of public interest, such as health care and environmental protection for example, could qualify for participation in the CCIRN. Simon Holland remarks that such areas are included in the 4th Framework programme. Everybody agrees that globalisation is necessary and that ISOC should be more active in this respect. Barry Leiner says that there is already considerable discussion inside and outside ISOC on how to run certain services, such as IANA for example, and ISOC's role in this. IETF, IANA and INTERNIC are all functioning as separate entities now, funded by US government agencies. The CCIRN feels it beneficial that there should be an independent body responsible for IETF, IANA and INTERNIC, and that the ISOC would be the most appropriate body to play that role. The CCIRN therefore encourages the ISOC to consider this issue and to propose a business plan to that effect. A9-6/94 Once the minutes of this meeting have been circulated and approved, a statement from the CCIRN should be sent to the ISOC to propose that it should act as global responsible body for the IETF, IANA and the INTERNIC. A10-6/94 (formerly A6-8/93) Tomaz Kalin and Daniel Karrenberg, in coordination with the IEPG, to produce their paper on funding the IANA as a top-level NIC, and submit it to the CCIRN mailer. 8. INTERNATIONAL LAW Barry Leiner says that differences between various national laws may prevent a globalisation in areas such as privacy, electronic commerce and accountancy, for example; national encryption laws, legal frameworks resulting in AUPs, copyright laws, amongst others. We do not know yet which body should deal with this issue, but the first thing to do is to spread awareness that there is a problem. We repeat below the Networking Ethics statement of the CCIRN from April 1989, for convenience sake: Networking Ethics CCIRN - April 1989 Status of this Memo This memo is a recommendation of policy by the Co- ordination Committee for Intercontinental Research Networking (CCIRN) concerning the proper use of resources in research networks (referred to as 'the networks'). At great human and economic cost, resources drawn from government, industry and the academic community have been assembled into a global collection of interconnected networks. The networks have become an important international infrastructure supporting an increasingly widespread, multi-disciplinary community of researchers ranging, inter alia, from computer scientists and electrical engineers to mathematicians, physicists, medical researchers, chemists, astronomers and space scientists. As is true of other common infrastructures (eg. roads, water reservoirs and delivery systems, and the power generation and distribution network), there is widespread dependence on the network by its users for the support of day- to-day research activities. The reliable operation of the networks and the responsible use of their resources is of common interest and concern for their users, operators and sponsors. Recent events involving the hosts on the networks underscore the need to reiterate the professional responsibility every user bears to colleagues and to the sponsors of the system. Many of the resources are provided by government; abuse of the system thus becomes a legal matter above and beyond simple professional ethics. Statement of Policy The networks form an international facility whose utility is largely a consequence of its wide availability and accessibility. Irresponsible use of this critical resource poses an enormous threat to its continued availability to the technical community. The governments sponsoring these systems have a responsibility to the public to allocate government resources wisely and effectively. Justification for the support of these systems suffers when highly disruptive abuses occur. Access to and use of the networks is a privilege and should be treated as such by all users of these systems. The CCIRN strongly endorses the following as unethical and unacceptable. Any activity which purposely: (a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of the networks, (b) disrupts the intended use of the networks, (c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such actions, (d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information, and/or (e) compromises the privacy of users. The networks exist in the general research milieu. Portions of them continue to be used to support research and experimentation on networking. Because experimentation on the networks has the potential to affect all of their components and users, researchers have the responsibility to exercise great caution in the conduct of their work. Negligence in the conduct of such experiments is both irresponsible and unacceptable. The CCIRN plans to initiate whatever actions it can, through the appropriate agencies and other interested parties, to identify and to have set up technical and procedural mechanisms to make the networks more resistant to disruption. Such security, however, may be extremely expensive and may be counterproductive if it inhibits the free flow of information, which makes the networks so valuable. In the final analysis, the health and well-being of the networks is the responsibility of its users who must, uniformly, guard against abuses which disrupt the system and threaten its long-term viability. Acknowledgement This statement was developed from one prepared by the Internet Activities Board which in turn followed from work undertaken by the Division Advisory Panel of the National Science Foundation Division of Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure. 9. NEXT MEETING After discussion, it is agreed that the next CCIRN meeting will be held from 14.00 hrs on Friday 16 June 1995 until Saturday 17th June 1995 in Singapore immediately after INET'95. Walter Wiebe suggests that a sub-committee meeting is definitely needed before that time in order to plan the set-up of NAPs. He announces that the FNC will organise a workshop to that effect in the Washington DC area in September 1994. 10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS James Hutton noticed in the FNC report the issue of naming and trademarks. He says that this has started to become an issue in the UK, for example the naming of schools. Exchange of information should be encouraged on this subject. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ASANO, Shoichiro NACSIS/Japan email@example.com BLOKZIJL, Rob RIPE firstname.lastname@example.org CHIANG, Michelle Technet/Singapore email@example.com CHON, Kilnam APCCIRN/ANC firstname.lastname@example.org COZANET, Anne RARE email@example.com DAVIES, Howard DANTE H.E.Davies@dante.org.uk GOTO, Shigeki JPNIC/APNIC firstname.lastname@example.org HOLLAND, Simon EC email@example.com HUTTON, James RARE/UKERNA firstname.lastname@example.org KALIN, Tomaz RARE email@example.com LEINER, Barry ARPA/USA firstname.lastname@example.org LIELLO, Fernando RARE/GARR email@example.com MATSUZAKI, Takayasu STA/JAPAN firstname.lastname@example.org MILLER, Grant NASA/USA email@example.com NEGGERS, Kees RARE firstname.lastname@example.org RAMAKRISHNAN, S. ERNET/INDIA email@example.com TAFVELIN, Sven RARE firstname.lastname@example.org (Tuesday 21 only) TAYLOR, Vincent CANADA email@example.com WIEBE, Walter FNC/USA firstname.lastname@example.org By telephone: BOSTWICK, Bill USA email@example.com WOLFF, Stephen NSF/USA firstname.lastname@example.org CHARTRAND, Greg DOE/USA greg@Epitome.er.doe.gov SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A1-6/94 Anne Cozanet to distribute the final minutes of the Bodega Bay meeting to the CCIRN and EU-CCIRN mailers. A2-6/94 Simon Holland will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of the documents which non-Europeans should read in order to obtain a general idea of what is happening within the 4th Framework Telematics programme. A3-6/94 Steve Wolff will put a list of contact names and addresses for NAPs on the CCIRN mailer. A4-6/94 Barry Leiner will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of documents relevant to the recently released ARPA White Paper on national information infrastructure. A5-6/94 Kees Neggers to check with Christian Michau whether RIO is an appropriate body to participate in the CCIRN. A6-6/94 CCIRN should take a closer look into IEPG activities; IEPG progress reports and results should be distributed on the CCIRN mailer. A7-6/94 Tomaz Kalin and Howard Davies to prepare and maintain a chart of European connections both within Europe and to the rest of the world, and announce its URL to the CCIRN mailer. A8-6/94 Simon Holland and Barry Leiner to write their paper on the role of the CCIRN and distribute it on the mailer. This paper should include guidelines to the regions on how to select their CCIRN representatives. A9-6/94 Once the minutes of this meeting have been circulated and approved, a statement from the CCIRN should be sent to the ISOC to propose that it should act as global responsible body for the IETF, IANA and the INTERNIC. A10-6/94 (formerly A6-8/93) Tomaz Kalin and Daniel Karrenberg, in coordination with the IEPG, to produce their paper on funding the IANA as a top-level NIC, and submit it to the CCIRN mailer.