Xref: utzoo news.groups:17660 news.admin:8292 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ames!saturn!xanthian From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) Newsgroups: news.groups,ba.news.config,news.admin Subject: Re: Internet rules (was: map question) Summary: Eeek! Better read this one, Gwendolyn; the Net's going away! Keywords: Imminent murder of USENet by FARNet predicted ;-) Message-ID: <10810@saturn.ADS.COM> Date: 12 Feb 90 11:15:01 GMT References: <267@hplabs.HPL.HP.COM> <101264@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1990Feb8.012051.7798@vicom.com> <4440@fernwood.MPK.CA.US> <1990Feb11.225848.23276@vicom.com> Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300 Lines: 380 Kent: I think that this discussion needs _much_ wider distribution! Kent: I hacked this out of several articles in the (Bay Area) Kent: newsgroup ba.news.config, changed to "name" style attribution Kent: to make things easier to follow (I hope!), (including my own Kent: stuff, such as this) reflowed the paragraphs to keep the lines Kent: on the screen, and added my uneducated comments. A few Kent: hyphenations that ended up on the same line probably slipped Kent: through; don't blame the original authors, it's just my flawed Kent: proofreading. I hope I got the attributions right. Be Kent: patient, it takes a long time to get to the really scary parts, Kent: but I thought the context was worth having. Followups are Kent: directed to news.groups. Can the folks who follow news.admin Kent: tell us if, and if so how soon, we can expect to see this Kent: enforced? Kent: In ba.news.config article <101264@pyramid.pyramid.com>, Kent: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) wrote: Carl: In article <267@hplabs.HPL.HP.COM> rodrique@hplabs.HPL.HP.COM Carl: (Mike Rodriquez) writes: Mike: In preparing my previous map update I was struck by the Mike: question of whether one should list their (ex)-uucp neighbors Mike: with whom they now communicate primarily via SMTP. Carl: I assume you mean that you now communicate with them over the Carl: Internet? Carl: I have *very* strong feelings about this, but every time I Carl: bring it up, I get buried in a firestorm; since someone else is Carl: *asking*, maybe it'll be OK this time. :-) Carl: I feel *very* strongly that Internet connections should never Carl: be listed in UUCP map entries. The reason is simple: from the Carl: perspective of UUCP, you can reliably reach any Internet site Carl: from any other Internet site. If I am trying to reach, say, Carl: princeton.edu, and I'm using the UUCP maps for routing, and I Carl: am making any effort at all to pay attention, I will have a Carl: "top level domain" entry for .edu that points to a site that Carl: has agreed to handle all my Internet mail. Now, if hplabs has a Carl: link listed to "princeton," this will take precedence over my Carl: .edu entry, and actually worsen my connectivity. Similarly, if Carl: I have a direct UUCP link to princeton, the hplabs Internet Carl: connection may well be "lower cost," thereby rerouting mail I Carl: intended to go via UUCP over an Internet link, thereby putting Carl: me at an unsuspected risk of violating one of the Internet Carl: usage rules. Carl: The same goes for any fully connected network -- ENet, Bitnet, Carl: etc. Carl: I do recognize the notion of "fully connected network" is Carl: sometimes far less than ideal among the multiple internets. But Carl: generally speaking, the worst Internet path is usually much Carl: better than the best dialup path. Kent: In ba.news.config article <1990Feb8.012051.7798@vicom.com> Kent: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) wrote: Larry: In article <101264@pyramid.pyramid.com> Larry: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: Carl: be "lower cost," thereby rerouting mail I intended to go via Carl: UUCP over an Internet link, thereby putting me at an Carl: unsuspected risk of violating one of the Internet usage rules. Larry: When we joined the net several years ago, we were told that Larry: uucp mail could not take a short cut through the Internet. Larry: Interestly, the MX system provides for exactly that. Being Larry: one hop off the Internet, and a registered domain, and with Larry: the approval of one of our four Internet neighbors, we began Larry: to use Erik Fair's mkglue script, which provides for automatic Larry: shortcutting. Larry: The questions are: Are there published rules? Has there ever Larry: been any action for this "abuse"? What about when send to Larry: foo.com and they are not an Internet site? Is that an abuse? Larry: How could I tell anyways? Kent: In ba.news.config article <4440@fernwood.MPK.CA.US> Kent: geoff@Fernwood.MPK.CA.US (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: Geoff: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: Larry: The questions are: Are there published rules? Geoff: Perhaps the following will be of help. I was present at the Geoff: meeting when they were approved. Geoff: Geoff Goodfellow Geoff: January 23, 1990 Geoff: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Geoff: FOR MORE INFORMATION: Geoff: Richard Mandelbaum Geoff: (716) 275-2916 Geoff: San Diego, CA, January 9, 1990 - In a move towards the Geoff: establishment of a more coordinated national research and Geoff: education network environment, the Federation of American Geoff: Research Networks (FARNet) has adopted the first in a series Geoff: of guidelines, or FARNet Position Papers (FPP). The two Geoff: documents approved at the just-concluded San Diego conference Geoff: address the following: FPP Development and Approval Process Geoff: (FPP #1) and Guidelines on Acceptable Use and Connection (FPP Geoff: #2). Geoff: FARNet is an organization currently consisting of twenty-five Geoff: regional and state networks, who provide access from local Geoff: networks to the national research and education network Geoff: community (the Internet). The purpose of the Federation is the Geoff: advancement of science and education through the aiding of Geoff: communication among research and educational organizations. Geoff: The Federation endorses the coordination and interconnection Geoff: of regional and backbone networks to encourage the formation Geoff: of a unified network environment, thus providing enhanced Geoff: access to scientific and educational resources, both Geoff: nationally and internationally. Geoff: During the past three years, networks serving the needs of Geoff: research, education, and science have experienced explosive Geoff: growth. The growth has occurred at the campus, local, Geoff: regional, national, and international levels. Technical and Geoff: financial investments by both the public and private sectors Geoff: have been considerable. Utilization of these networks has Geoff: become essential to large segments of the American research Geoff: and academic communities, and continues to grow at a startling Geoff: rate, over 500% in the last 18 months! Guidelines for the Geoff: orderly development and interconnection of these varied Geoff: facilities are essential for the integrity of the networks and Geoff: continued provision of high quality services to educators, Geoff: researchers, scholars, and administrators. For this reason, Geoff: the FARNet Guidelines on Acceptable Use and Connection were Geoff: unanimously approved. Geoff: In summary, the Guidelines govern inter-regional traffic and Geoff: recommend that traffic between the FARnet-Member networks be Geoff: restricted to research or academic purposes, or to direct Geoff: administrative support of such efforts. (Intra-regional Geoff: traffic is governed by the guidelines set by each regional.) Geoff: The position was adopted because the networks represented by Geoff: the members of FARNet are, in many instances, at least Geoff: partially funded by grants from state or federal agencies. Geoff: Activities that are beyond the scope of research or academia Geoff: are not considered acceptable. For example, Richard Geoff: Mandelbaum, FARNet's Chairperson, summarizes from the Geoff: Guidelines, "It is not acceptable to send invoices between two Geoff: commercial entities on different regional networks across a Geoff: national backbone." Geoff: Future FARNet Position Papers are to include such issues as Geoff: network design and engineering, international interaction, Geoff: commercialization of services, network management models, Geoff: value-added services, and methods of more accurately Geoff: addressing the information movement needs of researchers, Geoff: scholars and educators. (For further information, contact Geoff: Richard Mandelbaum (716) 275-2916 or rma@cs.rochester.edu) Geoff: FARnet Position Paper #2: Geoff: FARNET GUIDELINES ON ACCEPTABLE USE AND CONNECTION Geoff: 1.0 Introduction Geoff: During the past three years national regional and local Geoff: networks have experienced exponential growth. The technical Geoff: and financial commitments made by the private and public Geoff: sectors have been varied and considerable. Use of these Geoff: networks is now considered essential by large segments of the Geoff: American research and academic communities. Geoff: Mechanisms for management have been ad hoc and inconsistent. Geoff: Currently there are no published guidelines nor an associated Geoff: method of adjudication addressing the use of network Geoff: resources. Furthermore, inconsistencies exist among regionals Geoff: about what is considered acceptable use of national networks. Geoff: Without effective management of the use of the network, there Geoff: exists potential for severe economic and political problems. Geoff: Regional networks and the national backbones receive a Geoff: considerable amount of federal funding. This subsidy requires Geoff: accountability, a means to demonstrate that the federal funds Geoff: are being properly applied. Given the strategic importance Geoff: that the networks have assumed for national research and Geoff: development, it is vital that the integrity of the resource be Geoff: maintained. Geoff: 2.0 Intent Geoff: The intent of this document is to suggest policies and Geoff: mechanisms for determining appropriate use of and connection Geoff: to networking resources. The networking environment model is Geoff: assumed to be a three-tiered hierarchy consisting of a set of Geoff: national backbone nets (such as NSFnet and NSN), campus and Geoff: corporate networks (such as a campus-wide university network Geoff: or a corporate site LAN) and, connecting these components, Geoff: mid-level networks that offer sites in states or geographic Geoff: regions access to national nets. It should be noted that Geoff: mid-level networks may in turn be made up of several layers of Geoff: state and regional networks. Geoff: This document specifically addresses traffic that is exchanged Geoff: among mid-level networks that are members of FARnet, whether Geoff: across a national backbone or on a publicly subsidized direct Geoff: regional connection. It does not preclude additional Geoff: requirements that a national backbone might establish. This Geoff: document may also serve as a basis for acceptable use policies Geoff: within a mid-level network. Geoff: 3.0 Definition of Terms Geoff: Appropriate use refers to whether the use of the network is Geoff: consistent with the guidelines for each network that the Geoff: traffic traverses. This applies both to standard applications Geoff: (e.g., electronic mail, file transfers, and remote login) and Geoff: nonstandard uses (chat, experimental protocols, etc) Geoff: Acceptable connection refers to the specific authority and Geoff: terms by which a user accesses the network. Issues that are Geoff: addressed here include restrictions on access (for security Geoff: purposes), resale of connectivity, etc. Acceptable use and Geoff: acceptable connection, while related, are separate issues. It Geoff: is possible for acceptable connections to be used for Geoff: unacceptable use, and for acceptable use to be performed on an Geoff: unacceptable connection. Geoff: 4.0 Acceptable Use Policy Geoff: Given both the volatile nature of the technology employed and Geoff: the demand that users make of the network, determining Geoff: acceptable use is a dynamic and iterative process. In Geoff: evaluating whether a particular use of the network is Geoff: appropriate, several factors should be considered: Geoff: Traffic between mid-levels should be restricted to research Geoff: or academic purposes, or to direct administrative support Geoff: of such efforts. Organizations whose connection to the Geoff: internet is sponsored by a FRICC agency can use the network Geoff: in support of the sponsored activities. Traffic whose Geoff: content is solely commercial is not acceptable. Malicious Geoff: use is not acceptable. Use should be consistent with Geoff: guiding ethical statements and accepted community Geoff: standards. Use of the internet in a manner that precludes Geoff: or significantly hampers the use by others should not be Geoff: allowed. Geoff: Each mid-level network should establish a regional acceptable Geoff: use policy that permits, at a minimum, the transit of any Geoff: traffic that is acceptable to an attached national backbone. Geoff: Mid-level networks may establish additional requirements as Geoff: are appropriate to the regional mission. Geoff: FARnet recommends that each regional accept traffic from other Geoff: regionals if the use was determined to be acceptable under Geoff: these guidelines by the originating network. Geoff: Decisions made by mid-level networks or backbone providers Geoff: regarding specific instances of acceptable and unacceptable Geoff: use should be widely circulated to encourage consistency. Geoff: FARnet can and will act as a vehicle for the distribution and Geoff: maintenance of such information. Each mid-level network Geoff: should designate an individual to participate in the exchange Geoff: of this information. Geoff: 5.0 Acceptable connection Geoff: Mid-level networks should insure that the connections made to Geoff: them are consistent with the effective use and protection of a Geoff: shared resource. The mid-levels should know what networks are Geoff: connected and what use is being made of the network. Geoff: Mid-level networks should instruct members on current Geoff: guidelines for acceptable use. Access to the internet should Geoff: be protected through the use of prudent security measures. Geoff: Unauthorized connections to the internet should not be Geoff: permitted. "Third party" connections (such as internet access Geoff: being provided by research parks or through resale by a Geoff: mid-level subscriber) should be done only with the approval of Geoff: the mid-level networks. Connections which create routing Geoff: patterns that are inconsistent with the effective and shared Geoff: use of the network should not be established. Geoff: 6.0 Adjudication Geoff: Mid-level networks should distribute this statement to member Geoff: institutions and request members to inform their communities Geoff: about these issues. Geoff: Responsibility for the determination of whether a proposed use Geoff: of the network is acceptable begins with the initiating user. Geoff: If the user is uncertain, the associated connecting authority Geoff: or mid-level should be contacted. Geoff: Mid-level networks should consult with backbone providers and Geoff: FARnet as needed to determine if an intended use of a backbone Geoff: is consistent with the policies of the provider. The results Geoff: of these deliberations should be distributed among the Geoff: mid-level networks to encourage consistent policy. FARnet Geoff: should be active in implementing this process. Geoff: If disagreements arise among mid-level networks concerning Geoff: their direct connections, FARnet should attempt to act as a Geoff: reconciliatory agent. Geoff: 7.0 Enforcement Geoff: In instances where particular traffic is determined to be an Geoff: abuse, the mid-level network that originated the traffic will Geoff: be held responsible for both admonishing the perpetrator and Geoff: preventing further abuse. It is assumed that the mid-level Geoff: network will, in turn, place similar responsibilities upon its Geoff: members. Geoff: Mid-level networks should make a good faith effort to enforce Geoff: the decisions that emerge from the adjudication process Geoff: undertaken by FARnet. Kent: In ba.news.config article <1990Feb11.225848.23276@vicom.com> Kent: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: Kent: [Some previously included stuff omitted; there was quite a bit Kent: of it] Larry: Are these in any way binding? If I read these correctly, most Larry: of the .COM domain does not qualify. The MX system for uucp Larry: .COM sites would have to be eliminated or severly restricted. Larry: The Internet has evolved over the years. While it may have Larry: started as a DARPA project to link universities and defense Larry: contractors, it now provides the communication backbone for Larry: hundreds of thousands of machines throughout the world, most Larry: of which have nothing to do with research, education, or Larry: defense work. If I'm reading the guidelines correctly, the Larry: majority of the "trash" on netnews would not qualify. One Larry: .COM could not talk to another, even if both are directly on Larry: the Internet, unless the communication satisfied a very narrow Larry: range of allowable topics. Larry: Does FARNet really run the second level interconnect? Could Larry: this spell a return to the USENET of several years ago, with Larry: two day delivery times? Are they going to kick all of the Larry: .COM sites off the Internet? Or just resrict them to their Larry: regional net? Kent: I don't think a single one of the many (>40) newsgroups I read Kent: from USENet could be copied across to the Internet under the Kent: listed rules. In fact, most traffic of _all_ groups I've ever Kent: read (used to be more than 130) would probably not qualify. Kent: Even in such staid groups as sci.math, most of the postings Kent: would be lucky to qualify as "recreational" in nature, vice Kent: "arrant nonsense" for the plurality of the rest. The essence Kent: of communication pathways normal humans are willing to tolerate Kent: includes concepts such as "fun", "anger", "errors", "insults", Kent: "blundering around lost", and "misunderstandings". If "you" Kent: try to force the signal to noise ratio too high (> 10%, on a Kent: guess) most of the signal will go away in search of a more Kent: forgiving communications channel. Kent: I'd guess the posted rules were not written by people who are Kent: daily _contributing_ participants in any widely distributed Kent: net, or they'd have better sense. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies. Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. Just another pair of enemployed graphics programmer hands doing the Devil's work in frustration from enforced idleness. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-