Organization: Princeton University, Network Systems, Class. 56
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:24:23 -0500
From:         gettes@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      INTERBIT service proposals
Comments: To: interbit@bitnic.BITNET
Comments: cc: earn-nog@frmop11.BITNET

Over the last *many* months people have been inquiring about how to configure
and operate an INTERBIT gateway. Given these numerous requests and the
fact that CREN wishes to "standardize" the Interbit/e-mail environment,
John Wagner and I felt it was necessary to formalize the problem and
also hopefully formalize a solution with respect to INTERBIT services.
We began work on this in March of 1992 and completed both papers in
June of 1992, and presented them to the CRENTAC committee for its July
meeting in Boston. To the best of my knowledge, the CRENTAC has yet
to discuss these papers but John and I have received only positive
remarks from various members of the committee. John and I continued
to try and improve upon the papers and learn more about what it means
to provide an INTERBIT service, Princeton is moving an average of more
than 200,000 mails via our collection of SMTP/MAILER processes providing
the INTERBIT service. At the EARN Network Operations Group meeting held
on October 30 and 31 of 1992, these two papers were presented to EARN
and the minutes of their position on the INTERBIT service are included
below.

We have posted these two papers as BITNET Request For Comments (BRFCs).
I will be e-mailing a copy of each BRFC to the INTERBIT discussion list,
INTERBIT@BITNIC, where discussion of these proposals will take place.
Please do NOT discuss these proposals on any other list. The first paper,
BRFC0004, describes a framework for services in an NJE network. It is
conceivable that this paper could be used for formalizing other services
on the network, but this is not required. The framework for the services
was realized from practical experience in dealing with the core nodes
within CREN and EARN which now support most of the traffic of the NJE
network around the world. The second paper, BRFC0005, defines the INTERBIT
Gateway Service and is based upon BRFC0004. A reading of both papers
is necessary to understand why and how we set out to define and manage
the service in the future. Please read both before commenting.

We fully expect discussion to take place with constructive ideas and
additions/deletions/changes as warranted. Minor changes were requested
by EARN and incorporated as these changes were of benefit to the service
and EARN. We do wish to move forward with this as quickly as possible
and if no serious problems are raised within the next month (we would like
a target date of Jan 18, 1992) then we will move forward with the
implementation of the proposal.

This service definition applies to those supplying any existing INTERBIT
services.

The BRFCs mentioned here are available from LISTSERV@PUCC (pucc.Princeton.EDU)
by sending the GET BRFC000x TEXT command in the body of e-mail or by
interactive message. BRFC0000 describes the current, short, list of BRFCs.

/mrg

========================================================================

From the Minutes of the EARN NOG meeting 30-31/10/92 (Pisa)
document "EARN82 92" available from LISTSERV@FRORS13.

Relative portions are:

2.6 The INTERBIT service definition proposal.

MG briefly described the concepts expressed in the two paper
previously circulated in the NOG list: Internetwork Services
Between NJE and Non-NJE Environments, and Interbit Gateway Service,
written by MG and John Wagner.
In presenting the second paper MG stressed the fact that
Princeton University would be the maintainer of the INTERBIT service.

A general discussion on the first paper took place.
It was pointed out that even if the proposal (the general
framework) is approved it would have no immediate effect since it
does not define which set of services shall be considered part of
the framework.
A key point seemed to be that organizations willing to offer a
service for free, under no specific condition, may easily ask for
money for the provision of the same service if it is included in
this framework.

Resolved:
The NOG notes the paper and accepts this as a framework for the
Interbit service. The paper will be stored as an official EARN
NOG paper.

ACTION: HD To store the paper in the EARN document filelist.


A general discussion on the second paper took place.
The NOG approved the paper for the definition of the Interbit
services in Europe.
The NOG also asked the EARN management to notify CREN about this
decision, and that the Interbit servers installed at CREN sites be
requested to comply to the same set of rules.
The NOG also approved that Princeton University will act as a
maintainer for this service.
The paper will be stored as an official EARN NOG paper.

ACTION: HD To ask Executive to inform CREN about NOG decisions
        concerning Interbit

ACTION: HD To store the paper in the EARN document filelist.

It was also noted that the current definition and distribution
of the INTERBIT sites is not homogeneous (9 in Europe and 2
in BITNET). This creates undesirable effects such as having
US .edu users using INTERBIT installations in Europe.
It is therefore also requested that CREN makes all the necessary
efforts to increase the number of INTERBIT sites in the USA.

ACTION: HD To ask EXECutive to submit a request to CREN to increase
        the number of Interbit sites in the USA.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU