|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NetMonth, February 1989
******** **************************************************
* * * * *
* * * * The independent guide to BITNET *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
* * * * Volume 3, Number 8 *
******** * * * *
** * * * *
*** * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * **
* ** ** * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
****** * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * **
* * * * *
******** * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * *
******** * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
*** * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
*** * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
****** * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* ** * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
**** * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * **
****** * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * *
******** * * * * * *
* ** * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
**** **************************************************
1
* * ****** ******* * * ***** * * ******* * *
** * * * ** ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * ***** * * * * * * * * * * *******
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ** * * * * * * * ** * * *
* * ****** * * * ***** * * * * *
* * * *
*********************** *******************************
Christopher Condon Editor CONDON @ YALEVM
Timothy Stephen Associate Editor STEPHEN @ RPICICGE
Craig White Associate Editor CWHITE @ UA1VM
June Genis Contributing Editor GA.JRG @ STANFORD
David Hibler Contributing Editor ENGL0333 @ UNLVM
Henry Mensch Contributing Editor HENRY @ MITVMA
Deba Patnaik Contributing Editor DEBA @ UMDC
Gerry Santoro Contributing Editor GMS @ PSUVM
Marc Shannon Helpdesk Editor HELPDESK @ DRYCAS
Glen Overby Technical Assistant NCOVERBY @ NDSUVAX
Gary Moss Point of View MOSS @ YALEVM
********************* Contents - Issue 29 *********************
*********
* *** * EDITORIAL PAGE____________________________________
* *** *
* *** * Bitnotes ....................................... 1
*** *** Writing LISTSERV .............................. 4
* *** *
* *** *
* *** *
*********
*********
* *** * FEATURES__________________________________________
* *** *
* **** * The BITNET/CSNET Merger Study .................. 6
* ***** * An Internet Name Server ....................... 13
* ****** *
* *** *** *
* *** ****
*********
*********
* * DEPARTMENTS_______________________________________
* *****
* *** * Headlines ..................................... 15
* *** * New Mailing Lists ............................. 16
* *** * Feedback ...................................... 20
***** * NetMonth Policies ............................. 21
* *
*********
*********************** Distribution: 3792 *********************
1
Page 1
*********
* *** * Bitnotes
* *** *
* *** * by Christopher Condon
*** ***
* *** * Yale University
* *** *
* *** * CONDON@YALEVM
*********
"And so, from much reading and little sleep,
his brain dried up and he lost his wits."
- Cervates, "Don Quixote"
"The election vote for the BITNET-CSNET merger resulted in a
strong mandate to the BITNET Board of Trustees to proceed with
the merger. Of the 417 members of BITNET eligible to vote, 216
votes were cast in the merger election. Of those, 195 were in
favor of the merger and 21 were opposed. With this mandate,
the BITNET Board of Trustees and the CSNET and UCAR
representatives will proceed aggressively, through a Transition
Team representing both networks, to formulate Bylaws, a Policy
Manual, a (long-range) business plan and (short-range)
transition plan, and other specific components required for the
merger to actually take place. As these detailed proposals are
developed, the memberships of the two networks will be kept
informed and their input will be solicited. There is
considerable optimism that the cost of the transition to the
merged network can be kept far lower than the costs envisioned
in the consultant's report. The incumbents were all re-elected
to the BITNET Board of Trustees."
- Jim Conklin
Director, BITNIC
I have probably mentioned before that there is an ancient
Chinese curse which says, "May you live in interesting times."
As I read through the plans for the BITNET/CSNET merger, that
curse came to mind yet again.
The thought that "all altruists should be burned at the stake"
also came to mind, but that isn't the subject of this month's
editorial.
Interesting times. Over the next three years, BITNET and CSNET
as we know them will cease to exist and become... something
else. I have heard the the name "OneNet" thrown around, but I
1
Page 2
don't believe that is official. My guess is that the CSNET name
will be no more, and the merged networks will still be known as
BITNET. Of course, that may also be wishful thinking.
If I understand the text of the plans correctly (in the
Features section of this issue) most of us will not notice that
a merger is going on, except for the wonderful things that will
be happening. For example:
"Realize a stronger voice for the BITNET/CSNET membership."
Rather oddly stated, but true. BITNET and CSNET compete in
many areas for resources (translation: money) as well as for
membership. A combined network would fix that situation.
"Realize optional services." These will be interesting to see.
"Realize improved chances for longer term network services at
minimal cost." Translation: The bigger the network and its
financial base, the more stable it will be. If there are more
nodes the costs of maintaining the network will be spread more
widely.
"Realize low-cost service that will meet small institutions'
needs." Nothing new.
"Realize a wider financial base." See "Realize improved
chances..."
"Realize increased technology transfer potential between
universities and government/industrial users." A vaporlike
benefit, at best. We realize this presently though our
connections to other networks. While the potential for
technology transfer may increase, I find the actuality
unlikely.
This pessimism of mine aside, I support the merger (not that I
have much choice). That is because the current information
center contractors (in the case of BITNET, EDUCOM) will be
maintained until December 31, 1990. It is interesting to note
that the sole benefit from the merger noted for *1991* is:
"Realize improved services." I am certainly not anti-BITNIC,
but I am interested in what kind of organization will replace
it, or what it will become. I predict that EDUCOM will
continue to administer the network beyond 1991, no matter what
the plans say now, but that is beside the point...
Little is mentioned about information center services, except
that they will either stay at their current level or be
"improved." I would like to hear more about this, because the
information center is where the potential for improving network
1
Page 3
is greatest (and most noticable). The shakeup caused by the
merger is the perfect opportunity to redefine the scope of
responsibility and the staffing (size) of the Network
Information Center.
Perhaps my brain has dried up, but it seems to me that is the
sort of issue that should be emphasized as we proceed with the
merger. Larger financial bases and increases technology
transfer are nice, but they won't mean much if network
information services aren't expanded to meet the needs of the
nineties.
*****
In an effort to expand the ranks of our already bulging ranks,
I am looking for people who are willing and capable of writing
witty, interesting, and informative monthly editorials about
life in EARN and NetNorth. We publish lot about the political
and technical battles of BITNET, but we include very little
about our sister networks. This situation is, of course,
entirely unfair and should be recitified at once. If you are
interested or have some ideas, send me a note! Until next
month...
Virtually,
Chris Condon@YALEVM
1
Page 4
*********
* *** * Writing LISTSERV
* *** *
* *** * by Eric Thomas
*** ***
* *** * Centre Europeen de la Recherche Nucleaire
* *** *
* *** * ERIC@LEPICS
*********
I have been asked to provide some information about the number
of lines of code in LISTSERV, the time it took me to write it,
etc. I do not believe in evaluating the amount of programming
time required by a project by dividing the amount of lines of
code by some managerial constants which supposedly represent
the average efficiency of a programmer, but I respect the
religious beliefs of other people, so here's the info.
LISTSERV is comprised of 12750 lines of documentation and 35500
lines of code, of which 6300 are in assembler (the rest being
REXX). The documentation is quite a bit verbose, as I enjoy
writing in English (I take documentation as a pseudo-literary
break in my grim everyday world of americanized technical
jargon). However, the code is relatively compact, because I am
very lazy, and do not particularly enjoy writing these
meaningless sentences using this ridiculous vocabulary of 50
words or so. Have a look at the REXX part of the survey exec
for an example; another example could be the LISTSERV database
functions, which fit in 2400 lines of code (1100 assembler,
1300 REXX). The REXX code contains almost no comment (comments
are for freaks who can't read core dumps); the assembler code
usually has one comment a line, plus a number of block comments
(I can't stand waiting for the core dump to get printed).
The internals of LISTSERV were rewritten twice since the first
version, not in the "stop and start from scratch" way but
through a constant evolutionary process: whenever I needed to
change a module to fix a bug, I would carefully review all the
routines and usually rewrite them, the first time to use more
powerful and efficient REXX programming techniques that I did
not know when I wrote the very first version, and the second
(and most important) time to adapt the code to the unexpected
growth of the product and resulting requirements. The first
time LISTSERV had something like 1/5th of the code it has
today, and everything was rewritten. The second time, it had
about 2/3rd of today's size, and maybe 2/3rd of the code was
rewritten. That is, the actual amount of code I ended up
writing is about 60000 lines.
1
Page 5
Most of LISTSERV was written during the 3 years that I was a
student in Metz and Paris. I used to escape the grim world of
Supelec every weekend and come to work in Centrale (FRECP11).
The first morning was spent reading and answering my weekly
couple of hundred mail files, the afternoon being spent working
on the system or on other smaller programs like CHAT or RELAY.
Sunday was usually dedicated to LISTSERV, as I prefer to work
with large time slices. That is, most of LISTSERV took around
150 Sundays to write (14-hours Sundays, but then any managerial
book or Supelec teacher will tell you that the amount of lines
you can write a day does not depend on the number of hours you
worked that day, nor on the programming language you have
used). The rest (mostly the UDD) was done at LEPICS, where it
is much more difficult to count the days since I am not forced
to be away 5 days a week.
That type of work is not something that you can bend into the
rules of computing project management books. It is not
something you can put into an equation, as in "150/20 = 7.5
months" or "60000/150 = 400 lines/day". It is not something you
can control, plan, schedule, monitor, explain, evaluate, audit,
etc. It is something that may happen, or that may not happen,
but which will take place or fail to take place regardless of
any of these "environmental parameters" that can be controlled
by managers. It is clearly a process that cannot be owned and
cannot be controlled, and therefore something that no manager
or politician wants to have to deal with.
1
Page 6
*********
* *** * The BITNET/CSNET Merger Study
* *** *
* **** * Prepared by Gillepsie, Folkner and Associates
* ***** *
* ****** * a consulting firm
* *** *** *
* *** **** Send comments to POLICY-L@BITNIC
*********
The following document was prepared by Gillepsie, Folkner and
Associates, the consulting firm retained by the BITNET Board of
Trustees and the CSNET Executive Committee to assist in the
study of the merger. Your node representative reviewed this
document (among others) when voting for the upcoming
BITNET/CSNET merger. In addition to providing some background
information on reasons behind the merger, it also provides some
clues as to the changes we can expect in the near future.
BITNET Board of Trustees Recommendation:
After many months of study by representatives of both BITNET
and CSNET, the BITNET Board (hereafter referred to as "the
Board") has recommended that BITNET proceed with the merger of
the two networks and their organizations, as has the CSNET
Executive Committee. The Board considered the pros and cons of
this decision at length in a several-hour discussion at their
October 1988 meeting after studying the Study Group and
consultant's reports. The Board unanimously felt that the
merger was in the best interests of higher education and would
present the opportunity to strengthen the networking support of
our community by managing the common destinies of the two
organizations to obtain the most enduring result. The CSNET
Board has also unanimously recommended merger.
This document is intended to briefly present the information
for the members to make an informed decision.
* Why are we being presented with this choice? Since BITNET is
a membership managed organization, the Board feels that the
final decision on the merger should be made by the membership.
The membership is, therefore, being asked to accept the
unanimous recommendation of the Board and vote YES to the
merger question on the elections ballot. A two-thirds majority
favorable vote will authorize the Board to proceed with the
merger as described below and, if satisfied with the proposals
of the Transition Team, to approve the bylaws of the merged
organization, transfer the BITNET assets into it, and terminate
the present BITNET Corporation. (Note that your vote must be
received by February 6 in order to be counted.)
1
Page 7
* Background: Early in 1988 it became apparent that there might
be several strong benefits to the merger of BITNET and CSNET.
Issues which motivated the investigation were:
1. Simplify networking life for the end users;
2. Stimulate a move towards providing ready and convenient
networking for the entire academic and research communities;
3. Maintain low-cost communication for all types of
institutions and research users;
4. Provide wider connectivity among all fields of intellectual
endeavor;
5. Provide a strong voice in networking for the current BITNET
and CSNET community;
6. Offer better services at the same, or lower, cost.
In February 1988 BITNET and CSNET decided to create a Study
Group to review a possible merger. In June 1988 a consulting
firm (Gillespie, Folkner & Associates) was engaged to assist
the Study Group by developing reports on the status of the
networks and a business plan for merger. The consultants
provided reports and briefings to the Study Group which
covered: pertinent factual information about the two
organizations, including the financial and membership status;
risks and benefits of merger; national and regional network
information and analysis; a series of financial models and
budget estimates; a possible dues structure; a short and long-
term plan; a detailed business plan. The consultants also
briefed both Boards on the reports and participated in lengthy
discussions.
* Why merge? The Board projected BITNET's future, and it is
consistent with and enhanced by a merger with CSNET.
Additionally, a merger of BITNET/CSNET would provide the
following benefits to the BITNET membership:
1. There will be reduced competition for one niche. There is a
need for a medium function network to complement the government
sponsored NSFnet, but it only makes sense to have one;
2. There will be a strengthened voice for the BITNET/CSNET
community as a merged network. This will be particularly
important in dealing with such agencies as the NSF on planning
and funding matters;
3. The combined membership will provide a wider financial base;
1
Page 8
4. Technology transfer will be encouraged by a good flow of
information between universities and government/industry users,
and between the two communities of expertise represented by
BITNET and CSNET. BITNET and CSNET members will begin
collaborating and interacting;
5. The combined network with professional management should
lead to improved services;
6. There will be improved chances for longer term survival of a
network which strongly serves small institutions and remains
low cost to all institutions. Small institutions will remain
as a part of the national network;
7. There will be wider connectivity of disciplines and
significant new international connections available to both
networks.
* As in any merger activity, there are some risks. The main
ones are:
1. There may be some additional costs for merger;
2. The service level could be affected;
3. Institutions that are members of both networks may combine
services and cause a loss of total revenue.
The Board feels that it has done detailed planning to minimize
those risks.
* What is the concept of the new organization? The concept of
the merged organization as developed by the consultants is:
1. A new corporation will be created;
2. The merged network's Governing Board will be membership
controlled with final election procedures to be put in place by
the bylaws;
4. There will be an Executive Director supported by a small
staff.
* The goals of the merged organization are:
1. Provide a national and international, low-cost network
service for academic instruction and research, and the
government and industrial research community;
1
Page 9
2. Encourage and support national and international common
academic and industrial research interest groups, such as
computer scientists, automotive engineers, university
administrators and historians;
3. Encourage and support higher education institutions of all
sizes, including those of smaller size;
4. Provide a strong voice for the community it serves;
5. Emphasize a mail system that is easy to use, has high
reliability, has a large number of nodes, has fast message
service, and maintains low costs;
6. Be self supporting, which does not preclude seeking outside
support to further network development and the communication of
local, national or international scholars;
7. Foster "technology transfer" between higher education,
government research labs and industry;
8. Provide a full range of services consistent with the
scholarly mission of the community which the network serves;
9. Provide a class of service based on access-only (usage-
insensitive) charges;
10. Provide excellent services (at least at BITNET and CSNET
levels);
11. Provide average dues for BITNET and CSNET members that will
not exceed their previous dues for the same service level;
12. Provide modern technology.
* The membership of the merged organization will be:
1. Colleges and universities of all sizes;
2. Not-for-profits and governmental agencies;
3. For-profits (They will be able to communicate with each
other, as well as others.)
This concept will be reviewed and finalized by the Transition
Team (described later) and approved by the Board.
* What is the membership and financial state of BITNET and
CSNET?
1
Page 10
1. The current goals of BITNET and CSNET are similar;
2. While the membership makeup of CSNET is predominantly
through Computer Science Departments (53%) and BITNET is
predominantly university Computer Centers (67%), both encourage
all disciplines;
3. In June 1988 membership was CSNET 189 and BITNET 389;
4. 111 members belong to both CSNET (60%) and BITNET (29%);
5. Both networks are financially sound.
* How will the transition take place? When? The transition
will:
1. Maintain current services and levels of service for both
BITNET and CSNET;
2. Maintain self-supporting capabilities; Provide continuing
network services to BITNET and CSNET members with minimal
disruption;
3. Maintain current information center contractors (EDUCOM &
BBN) until December 31, 1990.
* If the membership approves the merger, the following will
occur:
1. The UCAR (CSNET is a project of the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research) Board of Trustees will vote on
approving the merger. The next steps will assume an
affirmative vote;
2. A Transition Team (appointed by the BITNET Board and CSNET)
will finalize the short-term and long-term plans and the
budget;
3. The BITNET/CSNET Boards approve the final short-term
plan/long-term plan/transition budget and will appoint a Long-
term Committee to build a long-range technical plan for the
merged network;
4. The Transition Team will execute the short-term plan with
the assistance of a consultant(s) and will produce the merged
organization's bylaws and incorporation;
5. The BITNET Board and CSNET (UCAR) organization will approve
the new bylaws and incorporation and transfer the two networks'
assets and membership to the new organization.
1
Page 11
6. The Transition Team will be the primary agents for UCAR
management, the CSNET Executive Committee and the BITNET Board
of Trustees to plan and execute the transition and to assure
balanced representation of the two constituencies.
7. The transition is expected to start in February 1989 with
incorporation of the new organization expected in November
1989.
* How will the transition be financed? BITNET and CSNET will
share transition costs. The out-of-pocket transition costs are
expected to be on the order of $500,000 to cover incorporation
fees, legal fees, planning meetings and technical meetings.
Some of these costs will be encountered by technical planning
in any case. Each organization will be able to fund the
transition without additional funds from the members, but
outside grants will be sought to minimize these costs.
* How will I know what is going on during the transition? The
BITNET Board considers it imperative that the membership be
aware of the transition activities and will require the
Transition Team to issue regular progress reports as milestones
are reached.
* How will the merger affect my dues? In 1989 there will be no
changes in membership dues. Since maintaining low cost is a
high priority of the merged network, a structure of dues and
fees for 1990 has been adopted for the merged network. This
structure minimizes costs. Some institutions with overlap will
be able to pay only one set of dues, if they chose to combine
BITNET and CSNET connections. Assuming no elected change in
service, BITNET members' (class I-IX) costs will be essentially
unchanged.
* How will the merger affect my service and cost? Short-term?
Long-term? In 1989 members will:
1. Continue in their respective organization with their
appropriate rules, policies and costs;
2. Continue with the same software, services and information
centers;
3. Become members of the merged organization in the latter part
of the year with no change in software, services or information
centers.
In 1990 members will:
1. Pay dues and fees according to the merged network schedule;
1
Page 12
2. Some institutions will be able to combine BITNET and CSNET
services at a lower cost;
3. Continue with the same software, services and information
centers;
4. Realize a stronger voice for the BITNET/CSNET membership;
5. Realize optional services;
6. Realize improved chances for longer term network services at
minimal cost;
7. Realize low-cost service that will meet small institutions'
needs;
8. Realize a wider financial base;
9. Realize increased technology transfer potential between
universities and government/industrial users.
In 1991 members will:
1. Realize improved services.
* What does it mean if the membership votes yes? If the
membership approves the merger, the transition process will
begin as outlined previously. The BITNET Board will have two
final approval actions to consummate the merger. The first
will be the approval of the final plans and budget. The second
will be the approval of the bylaws and incorporation of the
merged network. These events will be handled carefully with
every consideration for the future of the BITNET membership,
but will also be entered with the intention to merge as
expeditiously as reasonable.
* What does it mean if the membership votes no? If the BITNET
membership votes not to approve the merger, the networks will
continue their separate existence and we will have missed an
opportunity to become a stronger organization and reap the
potential benefits. Neither network is in immediate financial
danger, but the regionals are having some effect, and potential
new members will continue to wonder which network to join.
1
Page 13
*********
* *** * An Internet Name Server
* *** *
* **** * by Murph Sewall
* ***** *
* ****** * SEWALL@UNCONNVM
* *** *** *
* *** **** University of Connecticut
*********
* Editor's note: We thought that you might be interested in
what the people of the Internet call a "name server." It turns
out that we in BITNET can get some use out of it ourselves...
Have you ever tried to reply to mail you've received only to
have the SMTP gateway at CUNYVM, MITVMA, or CORNELLC (to name
the most frequently used gates) return your mail with the
message that the host (which just sent mail to you) is
"unknown?" The problem is that BITNET's gateways to the
Internet find hosts such as 'simtel20.arpa' or 'think.com'
which are connected directly to the Internet (that is, have
numeric 'IP' addresses) but are unable to locate hosts with
domain style addresses which have their mail forwarded by MX
(Mail eXchange) hosts. In other words, the gateway can't
"lookup" the MX automatically.
The solution is to address mail to domains served by Mail
eXchangers by explictily naming the MX on the "To:" line of the
address. The problem is how to identify the MX host for the
domain you wish to reach.
Now thanks to Dan Long and the computer center staff at
sh.cs.net there is a convenient way for someone at a BITNET to
determine MX hosts. A server has been created which accepts
domain host names as input and returns the applicable "name
server" records.
Send mail to:
nslookup@sh.cs.net
(subject line ignored)
With a text of:
host1.domain
host2.domain
(etc.)
For example, not long ago, a reader of the SAS-L list asked how
to reply to a message posted by someone at 'gtelabs.gte.com'
In order to find out, the following was mailed:
1
Page 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET
To: nslookup@sh.cs.net
gtelabs.get.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the reply:
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: CSNET Domain Name Server Agent
|