Subject: ISN future direction?

From: Jodi-Ann Ito <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:09:42 -1000

Hi,
Let me quickly summarize the different thoughts that people had
as to what ISN's future direction/projects could be:
- update the RFCs (K-12 Internetworking Guidelines, FAQ for Schools,
  and Ways to Define User Expectation) (any or all...)
- complete the Common Pitfalls doc
- look for ways to keep information current and available to schools
- exploring ISOC/IETF relations and possibilities
- revisit our role in advocacy and try to identify current needs of
  primary and secondary schools
- develop recommendations regarding "student safety on the net" (proxy
  servers, filters and filtering, security issues, etc.)

Apologies if I have missed any others (or mis-paraphrased) - please feel
free to send me a note/correction to jog my memory.... and if anyone has
any other things to add, please send it to the list. 

Since we do need to update our charter, which things should we focus on?
I'm assuming that most feel that ISN is still useful and we should 
continue onward? :-)  If not, please say so too....  Thanks.
-jodi

---

From: Lim Fung <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 21:02:25 +0800 (SGT)

>   and Ways to Define User Expectation) (any or all...)

That's a definite must.

> - look for ways to keep information current and available to schools

how about keeping a web site for the WG, I'm not sure if one is around. 

>   servers, filters and filtering, security issues, etc.)

How about something on maximizing system resources, or some pointers to
performance tuning to run an effecient network as well? I'm not sure if
that'll be out of the scope but I just thought it might be useful.

rgds,

-Lim Fung

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:00:21 -0700 (PDT)

> >   and Ways to Define User Expectation) (any or all...)

I'd been thinking about the Expectations RFC and wondering what
people think about it.  Does it need to be more direct/explicit
in what is expected/required?  There is the problem that the RFC's
cover the globe, so it can't be to regionally explicit.

-- 
--bill