Quality Information Services (quis) Charter
NOTE: This charter is accurate as of the 32nd IETF Meeting in Danvers. It
may now be out-of-date. (Consider this a "snapshot" of the working
group from that meeting.) Up-to-date charters for all active working
groups can be found elsewhere in this Web server.
- Mitra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- April Marine <email@example.com>
Applications Area Director(s):
- John Klensin <Klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
- Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
- Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@SURFnet.nl>
Mailing List Information
- General Discussion:firstname.lastname@example.org
- To Subscribe: email@example.com
- In Body: subscribe quality
- Archive: firstname.lastname@example.org body=`index quality'
Description of Working Group
The number of information services (Gopher, WWW, etc.) on the Internet is
growing rapidly. This poses a problem for administrators, implementors
and providers in maintaining the quality of the information service (as
opposed to quality of the information itself).
The aim of this working group is to deal with one of the specific
problems with respect to quality of the information service, namely link
problems. A link problem is defined as the case where a user selects a
link and is returned slow data, no data, incomplete data or wrong data.
The working group will analyze link failures and their causes, and, based
on the analysis, it will devise both technical solutions and operational
recommendations to address this specific problem.
Goals and Milestones
- Meet at the San Jose IETF, and analyse link failures and their causes.
- Mar 95
- Submit Internet-Draft detailing results of the link failure analysis done in San Jose.
- Jul 95
- Submit initial Internet-Drafts addressing operational and technical recommendations for providing maximally reliable information services.
- Jul 95
- Submit the link failure analysis Internet-Draft as an Informational RFC.
- Dec 95
- Submit the operational and technical recommendations Internet-Draft as an Informational RFC.
No Current Internet-Drafts
No Request for Comments