CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Dana Sitzler/Merit NISI Minutes Agenda o Review Draft Document o Discuss NIC Forum o Discuss Next Steps The meeting began with a review of the draft document. The goal is to submit the document to the RFC editor prior to tne next IETF meeting in July. The following revisions were suggested and will be made prior to submission: 1. Acknowledge the need for the registration function -- but do not include as a NIC requirement for all NICs. Treat as a special NIC function. 2. NIC accountability information should include: o time stamp o revision number o if NIC produced, should indicate in doc o info source is optional in file -- NIC should have contact information but it does not necessarily have to go in the file 3. The document should include examples of the nic@domain naming convention. Examples should indicate what user can expect if: o there is one nic at the domain and o there are multiple nics at the domain 4. The NIC forum will be open to all NIC personnel. NIC profile information collected will be kept online as a resource and also included in the Internet Resource Guide. 5. Document language should be revised to be more inclusive of international and peer network structures. The document currently assumes the hierarchical structure of NSFNET. An attempt will be made to make such references more generic so they apply to other structures. 6. The document should acknowledge the relationship between NICs and NOCs 1 The majority of the meeting was spent discussing these document revisions. We also got into a lively discussion about whether this document addressed the needs of a network information services infrastructure. It was acknowledged that this document is only a first step in the process -- an attempt to start the processing of setting NIC conventions. We also discussed the upcoming NSFNET User Services solicitation. The other Agenda items were discussed briefly. The NIC forum will be implemented at Merit and all NICs will be encouraged to participate. Time ran out before the group could discuss what the nisi group should do next. This topic will be discussed on the mailing list. Attendees Kathy Atnip kathy@wugate.wustl.edu Richard Bowles bowles@stsci.edu Sean Donelan sean@dra.com Elizabeth Feinler Douglas Gale dgale@note.nsf.gov Fred Gray fred@homer.msfc.nasa.gov Keith Hacke hacke@informatics.wustl.edu Martyne Hallgren martyne@theory.tn.cornell.edu Ajay Kachrani kachrani@regent.enet.dec.com Darren Kinley kinley@crim.ca Tracy LaQuey Parker tracy@utexas.edu Ruth Lang rlang@nisc.sri.com Gary Malkin gmalkin@ftp.com Robert Morgan morgan@jessica.stanford.edu Joyce Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu Karen Roubicek roubicek@bbn.com Allen Sturtevant sturtevant@ccc.nmfecc.gov Joanie Thompson joanie@nsipo.nasa.gov Chris Weider clw@merit.edu Wengyik Yeong yeongw@psi.com 2