Paul Bryant's Networking Correspondence
P Kummer (Daresbury) R Martin (RGO) E Samson (Swindon) ? (ROE) P Bryant (Rutherford) P Linington (JNT) 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE (SCC/P1/85) 2. REVIEW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES (SCC/P3/1985) Members are requested to provide a very brief written statement of network activities concentrating on those which could be useful on other sites. 3. WIDE AREA COLOURED BOOK ACTIVITIES Examination of areas of concern and areas for possible cooperation. JANET matters 4. LOCAL AREA ACTIVITIES Examination of development plans and manufacturers products. Ethernet and Token Ring possibilities. 5. ISO NETWORK PLANS What part can and should SERC take in the migration to ISO protocols. 6. PROPRIETARY NETWORKING Consideration of DECNET, SNA and other offerings and the part they play in SERC activities. 7. ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTING 8. INTERNATIONAL NETWORKING SERC is very involved with international links. How should This interest be furthered, what areas of concern is there. The EARN network. 9. TERMINALS (SCC/P4/1985) 9. INFRASRUCTURE FUNDING 10. THE IBM PC (SCC/P2/1985) An informal discussion on IBM PCs has been requested. It would be useful if members where aware of the PC activities on their sites and where there could be useful cooperation between sites. Of particular interest is the networking of PCs. 11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Frequency and location of meetings. 12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
The SERC Communications Coordination meeting has been initiated to:-
The cost of a PC XT/370 is:-
List Discount
8130032 PCXT/370 system unit 6201.00 3720.60 40%
1501105 PC Keyboard UK 185.00 111.00
8130003 Colour display 552.00 331.20
1504910 Colour Graphics Adapter 194.00 116.40
1602507 3278/9 Emulation Adapter 985.00 591.00
1501002 8087 Maths Co-Processor 214.00 128.40
6183946 DOS 2.1 (UK) 59.00 32.45 45%
5076.05
You will note that regretfully we still have to buy a 3278/9 board as the PC still comes with the A type port. We need to purchase the Colour boad and display but you can have the monochrome for the time being. Note better discount and no cover charge.
With the 4500 or so liberated I intend to buy an IBM PCAT to replace the XT/370. Thus I would put in an order for my PC and your bits under your project number with the balance from mine.
I hope you like the deal and look forward to your response.
You will also have to pay for the VM/PC licence program at 868 less 45% =477.40
Maintenance and development of VM and MVS Coloured Book products. Maintenance of RSCS network. Development of EARN/JANET mail gateway. Maintenance and development of on site X25 network. Maintenance of PACX. Maintenance of 3270 network. Development of new dial in equipment based on PABX in particular 2400bps Maintenance of JANET equipment on site. Development of special purpose ethernet connection for emulator farms. Joint development of ethernet ISO products with ULCC for IBMs. Evaluation of BICC ethernet boards for IBM PCs. Evaluation of PC networking products. Evaluation of EAN VAX VMS product. Evaluation of SYSTEL TELEX system into IBM. Evaluation of BRAID PC TELEX system.
Note that Cambridge Ring work has virtually stopped.
Provision of ethernet TCP/IP on UNIX machines. Provision of Coloured Book protocols on UNIX machines. Maintenance of PRIME and GEC Coloured Book products. Newcastle connection activities.
Development of Ethernet for use with emulator farms. Use of ethernet and DECNET between VAX machines.
ADMIRAL project which will use high speed terrestrial links. Use of ethernet and DECNET between Electron Beam computers.
Development of Cambridge Ring between SNS computers.
Use of ETHERNET and DECNET between VAX computers.
The contribution notes that PAD-to-PAD operations can be provided but that in this method of working it is not possible for one PAD to read or modify the values of the other PADs parameters. Lack of knowledge of the parameter settings allow errors, such as overwriting or double spacing, to arise in unattended operation and undesirable human intervention in the attended case.
The contribution puts forward the view that means for a PAD to read and/or modify the parameter values in a remote PAD are required. A number of questions are posed as to how such a facility could be provided.
CTIG identified a number of reasons for the requirement:-
CTIG take the view that no new protocol or changes to protocol should be introduced if current protocols can provide an adequate service.
In all the applications considered a host-PAD relation is observed. In the TELEX and printer examples the remote device receiving the call can be considered to be a device on a host and under these circumstances can read and set parameters under the existing standards. CTIG sees no standards difficulties in a system being both a PAD for outgoing calls and a host for incoming calls. There may be implementation difficulties in that more code would be required but this would not seem to be any more than would be required to implement extensions to X.28 to meet the requirement.
CTIG thought it undesirable that any new features should impact current PAD implementations which did not wish to provide for incoming calls but did wish to call another device for the purposes outlined.
It is recognized that it would be desirable for triple X to be as symmetric as possible however the need for this is small whereas the desire not to change existing protocols without good justification is high.
CTIG recommend that D107 should be rejected on the grounds that the current protocols can adequately meet the requirement.
CTIG recommend that although PAD-to-PAD operation is not specifically excluded its use should be discouraged.
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your letter with which I have a lot of sympathy. There are a number of comments I think worth making which you might find useful.
You should be very careful over the costings of a leased line network against the use of the public packet switched network. The costing of JANET is said to favour leased lines but there are many hidden costs not accounted for as well as a number of events which could effect the issue. If you add all the effort that goes into meetings, effort of staff in sites, the coordination etc. the results may not be so sympathetic to leased lines. In addition the PTT is likely to upgrade its network as required whereas JANET has to seek further capital funds of a substantial nature from time to time. My experience is that this is a nuisance and paying on the 'drip feed' has advantages as far as funding is concerned. It is proving difficult to manage JANET due to lack of staff, cuts, lack of tools and lack of expertise. The PTT has the resources to manage. I would add- if you believe a leased line solution is cheaper then why aren't you putting in a private telephone network for the universities to reduce costs? It appears that the PTTs are likely to reduce the costs of their data networks (or at lease keep them stable in money terms) whereas the indications are that the cost of leased circuits is likely to rise. I should add that the costings between a private network and the use of the public one are finely balances and may well hinge on the circumstances in a particular country so I would not like to persuade you one way or the other.
You are right that the 'Coloured Book' protocols are not popular in the USA and there are only a dozen or so sites using them. In fact we would not want to push their use particularly if that would undermine progress towards the use of ISO protocols. Never the less they do provide a viable option particularly if a site or country is prepared to migrate to ISO protocols in step with the UK. I would not agree with you concerning the popularity of X25 in the USA. I find that there is a lot of interest and, indeed, use although it is at a lower level than Europe. The USA seem to have hedged their bets by investing in a large range of protocol technologies such as ARPA, BITNET, USENET, CSNET, EDUNET and so on. These are entwined together with various gateways in a most complex way which makes me glad I am not involved with sorting it all out.
Whilst it is the long term aim both in Europe and the USA to migrate to ISO the paths to be taken differ fundamentally. In Europe we believe that we should migrate directly to ISO. Current networks, such as JANET should migrate, networks such as DFN will start as ISO networks and other networks such as EARN will gateway to ISO and eventually wither. In the USA they are using a step by step approach in that they intend first to migrate to the common use of TCP/IP with ISO protocols on top. The TCP/IP will migrate later and there is a suspicion that they may go over to use transport class 4 on private lines. In fact the USA is still very much feeling its way to a consensus and the above comments are just my impression. Europe is far more certain of its future particularly as the European Community is backing the use of ISO very strongly and a lot of public money is going into its development.
BITNET is certainly a cheap and cheerful network. But it is severely limited. Interactive facilities are difficult to provide particularly if you have to go via many hops. In fact they are discouraged in EARN. The network depends on nodes being up and in a large network several are down at any time. This is a particular problem on the international links (Rome went down several times due to power problems in the city and this stopped traffic to the USA). An X25 network depends on switches which are designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so tend to give a more reliable service. BITNET certainly starts to give problems when you have upwards of 100 nodes. Certainly in EARN we have a lot of management problems in ensuring a good service is given. None the less EARN and BITNET are very easy to start a network with and provide very valuable services.
I have a great deal of confidence that X25 and ISO will succeed particularly in the academic environment. The problem is how do you get to an ISO world in the next few years without upsetting the users. It is here that BITNET and Coloured Books both have a part to play. Coloured Books give a semi ISO service in that at leased the lower layers conform and thus a migration can be undertaken using the same 'copper'. In EARN it is more difficult and the migration of EARN will probably mean fairly massive changes in the topology as well as the protocols. In fact it will probably mean an entirely separate network emerging. As the EARN technical coordinator I am responsible for the migration of EARN and we propose to start the process in December by mounting X400 on a number of sites.
Turning to private matters I am most interested in genealogy. You may be interested to know that Bryant is a Breton name and indicates that your ancestors were Celtic chiefs. So you perhaps have royal Celtic French blood in you. On the other hand some Bryants are a corruption of Bryan. The name seems to have originated in the UK in the Bristol area and a glance at the telephone directory will confirm this. If the family did come from France then this would not be a surprise as Bristol was an important port. I myself come from near Bristol but I can only trace my Bryant side back to 1800. The family first came from Tickingham or Cleeve. Several of my relations went to Australia and New Zealand but this was in 1914 or thereabouts. I still write to relations in Australia but I have lost contact with the New Zealand ones although the names I have would all be between 80 or 90 years of age just now. Perhaps you should be pleased if you are not directly related since the earliest Bryant I can find was drunk most of the time and his son ran away from home to be brought up by a priest.
With best wishes
Paul Bryant.
Working group Y11 Y12 has been set up by the 'Information Technology Steering Committee' which was set up under CEN/CENELEC/CEPT/ITSTC sponsorship. The group has been charged with producing 'Functional Standards' in the area of the connection of a terminal to a host via an X25 network using the CCITT protocols X3, X28 and X29. Appendix 1 defines the area of interest.
The purpose of a Functional Standard is to make recommendations as to when and how certain information technology standards should be used.
The CCITT protocols X3, X28 and X29 are relatively mature and have been in use for several years. Over this period many interworking problems have arisen and a number of methods of exploiting the protocol have been developed.
A number if Functional Standards have been produced and the latest was produced as a result of the 'Zander Initiative' which resulted in the COS-4 document (Y11.Y12/P2/85). This document recommends how to use the protocols for keyboard terminals into hosts. The 'Guide to the use of standards in IES' endorses the COS-4 document. (Y11.Y12/P6/85) contains abstracts.
The COS-4 document is based on the CCITT 1980 recommendations with some comments relating to the 1984 version. It has now become apparent that the 1984 recommendations are deficient in that X28 is unable to exploit some of the features of the CCITT recommendation in the 1984 version of X24 and this is a caS-100 26 Stockholm Sweden 30 April 1986
Dear Wolf,
Since you did not receive my earlier letter that I sent to the Swedish Standards Organization I would like to raise the issues my group would like guidance on.
Users are irritated by the different character sets used in X.3, X.28 and X.29 services. The problem is thar a X25 network. They cannot be used, say, over ISO transport layer. There are proposals to redefine the protocols to operate over ISO Session. A view as to whether this is a desirable development needs to be developed. The topic is important if it is intended to operate the protocol over, say, a local area network which does not offer X25.
X3, X28 and X29 are not being proposed as ISO standards and it is expected that eventually the standard will be replaced by the ISO Virtual Terminal Protocol. A procedure for migration to VTP from the CCITT recommendations is needed to ensure that such a migration will not disadvantage the users.
Experience has shown that the protocol documents and Functional Standards alone are insufficient for implementors. This is because there are already many implementations in the field and new implementations must interwork with these as well as possible. To aid this the UK Character Terminal Implementors Group have produced a guide for implementors which contains a miscellany of contributions. This work requires some refinement.
It is proposed that the above list of topics should form the basis for the work of the group and the agenda has been written to reflect this.
The document was produced some time ago and was not subjected to
public comment. It requires a possible revision in the light of recent
developments.
The 1984 Triple X recommendations have ignored the new features
in X25. In particular there is no way of specifying the extended
address in X28. The UK Character Terminal Implementors Group has
put some preliminary thoughts into this problem.
The UK Character Terminal Implementors Group have put some thought
into changes they would like to see in Triple X. In particular
they are interested in making some of the optional features
mandatory as this could reduce interworking problems and improve
the quality of services provided.
It has been observed that many triple X implementations are poor
in that mandatory features are not included or protocol rules are
not observed. The UK Character Implementors Group have studied this
problem and have produced some ad hoc recommendations. None the
less it would be desirable to encourage manufacturers to produce
equipment which conforms to standards thus reducing interworking
problems.
British Telecom have produced a document 'Packet Net Mux, System
Manual, NMSSP31, draft May 1985, issue 09' which defines a block
mode protocol which operates over triple X.
Block mode working is essentially designed for connections between
intelligent terminals to hosts. An alternative scheme has been
studied which recommends that such connections use a form of X25
with asynchronous rather than HDLC framing. The document is
'Networking over Asynchronous Lines, The British Telecom New
Networks Technical Forum, CP(83)12, February 1983'.
In the light of the various block mode protocol proposals
for this type of working recommendations may be desirable. Since
the documents are large they will not be circulated unless the
working party intend to progress this topic.
In view of the desire to use triple X over non X25 networks the UK
Information Technology Support Unit have produced two documents
defining how this could be achieved over the ISO Session Service.
It is debatable whether such a protocol is required and uncertain
whether Session Layer is the correct one to define it over. The
documents are 'A Character Service Definition based on CCITT X29
used over ISO Session Service' and 'A Protocol for a simple service
based on X29 for use over ISO Session Service'. The documents are
bulky and will only be circulated if the group wish to progress
this topic.
The ISO Virtual Terminal Protocol documents are DP 9040/1 for the
service definition and DP 9041/1 for the protocol. It is unclear
whether one can expect VTP PADs to replace triple X PADs and if
such a replacement is to take place how it should be managed.
There may be a requirement for triple X to VTP gateways. The
documents will probably be available to members but will be
provided on request.
Note 1. It is assumed that members have access to the CCITT recommendations for both 1980 and 1984.
Note 2. Members are invited to suggest further topics for discussion and to provide further working documents.
EARN, together with BITNET and NETNORTH, is a world wide network for academic use. There are some 600 computers connected which come from a variety of manufacturers. IBM are generously financing the international communications lines until 1987 and have also provided equipment and expertise.
EARN uses the IBM RSCS communications protocols which provide a file transfer and mail service. Together with the other European academic networks, EARN will be migrating to use ISO protocols in the next few years.
There is a gateway between EARN and JANET at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. This allows file transfer between computers connected to JANET and to EARN, BITNET or NETNORTH. The JANET computer has to provide Blue Book File Transfer facilities.
The Gateway will also allow mail between computers on the networks. The JANET machines must have Grey Book mail and the machines on EARN, BITNET or NETNORTH should be running a compatible mail system which 50% do. It is possible to pass mail through EARN to many other networks both in Europe and America.
The development of the EARN gateway has been financed by IBM but the operating costs are provided courtesy of Rutherford Laboratory.
To use EARN a site has to 'join' EARN and sign the EARN Charter. This commits a site to use its best endeavors to ensure that the network is not misused. The principle misuse is to use EARN for commercial purposes but since JANET has similar if not tighter restrictions this is no problem.
Currently the use of EARN is free although it may be necessary to impose a small charge do defray administration costs. A larger charge may have to be set when IBM withdraw their patronage in 1987.
Further details can be had from Paul Bryant at Rutherford.
The development of a high speed local area network has been far slower than expected. There have been many hardware and protocol problems. In fact it is still not possible to buy a network to connect a reasonable range of heterogeneous machines.
In the UK sites are constrained by the JNT, and rightly so, to follow various standards in particular those being produced by ISO. Although hardware products are now fairly common the software to exploit this hardware is only available for a very small number of machines.
At Rutherford local area networking is provided by the relatively slow X25 network. There are a number of high speed networks put in for special or experimental purposes. These are based on ethernet or Cambridge Ring technology.
There was a project to use Cambridge Rings on the site. Unfortunately the equipment required was so delayed that eventually confidence with some of the manufacturers was lost. It now appears that Cambridge Ring technology is unlikely to be popular or widely available and ethernets are a much better option just now. Rather than to plan a further local area initiative a number of small scale experiments are under way to evaluate various products. In fact an interface to the large IBM computers has been developed, IBM PC products have been purchased and also interfaces for VAX computers. Considerable experience has been gained on the hardware aspects. There is still a lack of software but several promising products should emerge in the new year. Fortunately the demand for a high speed local area network is not strong and the large demand is for such facilities between specific heterogeneous machines in divisions and this need can be met by pragmatic methods.
The UK in conjunction with all the other European academic networking groups has committed itself to the use ISO protocols and there is now a vigorous movement to achieve ISO networking across the continent.
The basic principle is that if we all back ISO network methods then interworking problems will vanish. It is currently possible to get a better quality of service between homogeneous sets of machines using proprietary methods. However the quality of the ISO products is likely to improve and it is worth having a little less quality now in the interests of a better tomorrow.
There are now a large number of ISO standards which are complete. The principle ones still to be finalized are job transfer and terminal protocols. The most advanced ones are mail and X25, these have a lot of backing from the PTTs as they wish to base public services on them. The local area ethernet standard is very mature which leads to the belief that this is a technology to follow.
There is now much more emphasis on the exploitation of the protocols. It turns out that the protocols have a lot of options in order to satisfy as many activities as possible. It is thus all to easy to implement non communicating but conforming products. There are a number of groups defining how interworking should be achieved and good progress is being made. These groups are Europe wide and not confined to academics.
It is gratifying to note that most manufacturers, including the two giants IBM and DEC, are producing ISO products. The protocols are being heavily backed by the European Community and nearer home the DTI and JNT. Migration from the current Coloured Book protocols will take several years to achieve and there is a determination to make sure that this transition does not adversely effect the users.
Present: P Linington JNT (chair)
W Black NPNCG
J Craigie JNT
A Dand SWURCC
A Dransfield LNT
M Guy Cambridge
D Jackson ULCC
A Gilmore ERCC
P Bryant RL (Secretary)
Apologies:P Higginson UCL
N Davies AUCC
S Kille UCL
L Clyne JNT
V Hathaway DTI
1.1 (1.4) Essex can be reached via JANET although there is a belief that their NRS registration may be absent or incorrect. Mail should now go via JANET and N Davies will be asked to sort out his distribution list. Action: A Dand
1.2 (3.2.2) There had been no meeting of the Session group but there had been a Plenary meeting. For MBS read MHS.
1.3 (3.2.3) For 2821 read 2805.
1.4 (3.3.1) Second sentence should read- X400 is currently too PTT orientated and needs more information for proper private management domain usage.
2.1 The compatibility document concerning X25 80 and 84 was reported to be almost complete. M Guy requires it urgently. There appears to be a minor problem with level 2 link start up. There is a belief that 1980 X25 will work into an 84 version. If Yellow Book is used there should be no problems as it does not use the new features of 84. It was recommended that any new Yellow Book implementations should not use 84 features; in this case the implementation is not providing the OSI Network Service.
There may be difficulties with X29 using 84 features and it was recommended that the use of new features by X29 should optionally be inhibited by the individual user. Action: N Davies
2.2 A meeting of the IGOSIS Session group has been set up and will be reported on. Action: A Dand
2.3 It was reported that the JTMP group had not been discussing transition. The next meeting will be in December but little progress is expected. The meeting will be reported. Action: J Craigie
2.3 The COS-4 document has been distributed and there are no outstanding actions on CTIG. The topic is further considered under the CEN/CENELEC report.
2.4 J Craigie continues to receive SC18 documents and will circulate any of interest.
2.5 No Mail Group meeting has taken place. There is an IGOSIS mail group with a BT appointed interim chairman. JNT will talk to ITSU to resolve the chairmanship issue. Action: P Linington
The Mail Group is encouraged to continue consideration of the user interface and its functionality. Action: Mail Group
2.6 W Black noted the strong activity at CERN regarding X400 and in particular EAN. It was vital to have a gateway between Grey book and X400. The UCL gateway was not a service and discussions were taking place to provide a well supported gateway in conjunction with Alvey.
2.7 W Black was concerned that the wording in section 3.2.1 of the final report may alarm some people and agreed to provide alternative wording. Action: W Black
W Black has circulated a paper summarizing the responses to a survey on the requirement for the transfer of binary files. The replies showed a strong need for binary. Structured binary is almost exclusively used between homogeneous systems and often used proprietary structure methods. There was a less strong need to transfer unstructured 8 bit binary files.
It was agreed that requests for tender should demand the transfer of binary between homogeneous systems but that each system may need an explanation of what was meant by binary.
It was agreed that further study was needed for each range as follows-
VAX W Black
IBM P Girard
GEC P Bryant
PRIME M Clarinbold
Salford J Larmouth
It was agreed that it should be possible to gateway binary between homogeneous systems using Blue Book and FTAM.
This was an ISO/CCITT meeting for forward planning for Session. It seems likely that there will be few changes in the short term. There was some pressure to increase the size of some user data parameters in particular for the abort primitive. J Larmouth attended.
This was an FTAM editing meeting. Most technical problems are now resolved and there are now no major problems. A DIS should follow the November meeting. There has been some tightening up of the protocol in particular with respect to file structure. P Linington attended.
There was a lot of interest in MAP which looks to be harmonizing with ISO work. MAP is particularly interested in file access. Curiously they are not interested in the reliability aspects of applications. MAP may produce an FTAM 86 in December.
There was discussion on mail and some dissatisfaction with X400 in that the PTTs were not interested in private interworking.
TOPs (Technical and Office Protocols) is being led by Boeing who are 'doing a MAP' for office systems in which FTAM features strongly. This work is not as mature as MAP.
A Dand attended and will circulate an FTAM report. Action: A Dand
This was the academic X400 meeting which also had some input from Dutch industrialists. Day one was dedicated to EAN. Day 2 was chaotic and addressed gateway issues. James Martin Associates gave a paper on X400 - EARN based on the IBM Heidelberg product. This was not well received. Others wanted to talk more generally. The meeting was 25 strong with 5 understanding the topics. Day 3 was dedicated to harmonization. The discussion was directed to producing input to the Florence functional standards meeting to which C Makemson will be going. The commercial lobby wanted the lowest common denominator as the Functional standard whilst the academics argued the other way.
There was a discussion on the return of failed mail and whether mail should be rejected for non fatal reasons. Naming was also visited.
J Craigie attended.
The EARN technical meeting was planning its migration to ISO. The chosen route is to use the Heidelberg X400 product although there is not 100% confidence that this is the correct approach. The plan is to mount an international experiment between 4 or 5 sites to test the product in December. If this goes well then the network would start to migrate in mid 1986. P Bryant attended.
The important topics were conformance testing and ISDN. It seems that the ISDN and packet switched 'clubs' do not really understand each others positions. A Dand attended.
CEN/CENELEC in conjunction with CEPT have set working groups to produce Functional Standards. The groups are expected to produce recommendations very quickly. There are groups planned or working on many of the major protocols apart from VTP and job transfer. Although there is some unease at the method of working and methods of voting, the speed and status of the work is likely to make it important.
P Bryant will chair the Y11/Y12 group which is looking at triple X and he hopes to broaden the discussion to related topics.
It was agreed to circulate the list of members of committees. Action: P Bryant
There was a long and confused discussion on the relation between the NSAP address and the NRS particularly where gateways were concerned. The conclusion seemed to be that a machine may have entries in FTP and FTAM contexts and that one or other may point at a gateway rather than the target system.
It was agreed that subject to the cost being small a small number of experimental context should be set up which should not be known by the users of NRS.
There was hope that ISO would not abandon a tree structured approach thus avoiding substantial work in NRS.
The section on QOS in the report needs clarification and expansion. For the transition phase it was felt that quality of service should default to whatever the networks provided. Or put another way, be ignored.
This has developed from X409. The discussion was confused. It is unclear how much freedom of choice should be given to implementors.
A new draft will be circulated shortly and electronic mail comments are invited. Action: P Linington
Section 4.2 on addressing, 5.1 on X29 from the Ethernet report have now been concluded.
It is hoped to issue the report by the end of the year requiring final editing in November.
A Dand has produced sections 5.2 and 8.1 in handwritten form. The 5.2 section on file transfer defines the functionality needed in converters and the host functionality will in general be greater. It is important to support the current uses of FTP which at a minimum is the minimum Blue Book subset. It is important that users should not have to change their methods of working in that transfers via converters should be no more arduous than direct ones. In addition the user interface should be stable regardless of the protocol on the target.
There was a question as to how far recovery and restarts are needed and their use in the community was unclear.
J Larmouth will be asked for a section on JTMP to JTP transition. Action: P Linington
It was agreed that transport class 0 should be mandatory but class 2 optional.
Multiplexing in transport needed further study as did the support of expedited although this was thought highly desirable.
Monday 29 October, 10.30 Elizabeth House.
JNT is not represented on ITUSA; only institutional membership was originally encouraged. The future of ITUSA is not apparently assured.
Comments are invited on the letter to the exporting centres.
Dear Alain,
I have sent you a copy of the reply from British Telecom to Geoff Manning's letter. You will see that it is very negative and leaves little hope of any concessions. I have also sent copies to David Lord, Colin Setford and Tony Proudman. Perhaps you would talk to Herb about it and see if he can see any possible lines of progress.
On a more encouraging note - the line to CERN is now operational and after a few days of setting up and tests I shall be writing to all the University Directors and potential users to announce the service.
Colin Setford 'phoned me as he tells me that you have requested the number of computers on JANET. I regret that the exact numbers are not known. There are 200 'entities' connected to JANET. An 'entity' is ether a computer or a gateway to a local area network. The numbers of machines on the local area networks are not known. There is a registration scheme which should give all computers on both JANET and the associated local area networks. This list has 350 entries but since the scheme has only been in operation for a few months not all machines are registered. An educated guess as to the number of computers in the whole system is 450. There are about 250 PADs (terminal concentrators with up to 16 terminals) which are also connected and do not get registered. I hope that this information is what you require.
Further to our discussions last week I have further outlined the migration project and worked out some financial figures for your consideration. Perhaps we should consider this to be a draft and I will re-draft it when you have given it some consideration.
The project is in two parts - the first is the main project and the second is a proposal for work we would like to undertake at Rutherford.
The main project has a large cost against it that is heavily biased by the cost of the Series One computers. I have also costed the project for 8 participating sites and it may be appropriate to reduce this to a lesser number but at this stage the exact number is unknown.
The Rutherford proposal is not as good as I would have liked as it has been difficult to get details of the Heidelberg project as I gather that Guenter has been busy on other topics and has not had time to respond to my requests for information. The main project is also unsatisfactory without a definitive list of participants. None the less I am very sensitive to the fact that time is getting short.
I look forward to your comments and am very happy to re-draft the proposal. I you would like to do some re-drafting yourself I can send the document to you electronically.
With best wishes
Paul Bryant
Project Objectives
The objective of the project is to evaluate the Heidelberg X400 system as a possible means of migrating EARN to use ISO protocols and public data networks as requested by CEPT.
The current view of the EARN technical experts is that this system is the most promising means of migration although other options should be considered as they develop.
The project will provide for EARN a body of expertise in the Heidelberg system as well as expertise on ISO protocols.
The Heidelberg System
The Heidelberg system provides the X400 series protocols over an X25 network in the VM/CMS environment. A gateway between X400 and the RFC822 mail over RSCS is provided. The X25 service is provided via a Series One front end computer. It is expected that other ISO protocols will be incorporated in due course.
Project Outline
A number of EARN sites will be selected to take part in the evaluation of the Heidelberg system. Most of these sites will be international EARN nodes.
An expert form each site will attend a one week familiarization and briefing meeting in Heidelberg in December. At this meeting a detailed plan for the evaluation will be drawn up. It is anticipated that each site will be given areas of evaluation they will be responsible for, these will include:-
One site will be identified to lead the work and provide coordination.
In late December any required hardware will be installed and the Heidelberg system mounted.
During the first six months of 1986 the system will be evaluated.
Most of the communication between participants will use the system being evaluated. However there will probably be a need for two short progress meetings which for convenience could be at Heidelberg.
Project Results
Optimistically the evaluation will show that the system is suitable for the migration and will provide a pool of expertise in the community to undertake the process.
It is likely that a number of enhancements and changes will be found desirable. These may be undertaken by Heidelberg or by other sites depending on circumstances. These may require some funding.
It may be that the system proves unsuitable or better systems may be found whence the project will make appropriate recommendations.
Number Of Sites
There are currently eight sites interested in participating. It is likely that one or two will be unable to take part and costings are therefore on the basis of seven sites. A statement of intent to participate is being sought from each site.
A number of sites will require a gift or loan of a Series One Computer.
A number of sites will require X25 connections. It is anticipated that traffic levels will be very low and call charges will be found form site resources.
The estimate of manpower is two man months per site with an extra two man months at the lead site. It is suggested that the sites should provide the labour free on the grounds that they will acquire valuable expertise and experience. There is a case for funding of the extra manpower on the lead site of two man months.
Finance will be required three visits to Heidelberg and subsistence for eight nights.
The State Of The Sites
The states of the various sites is summarized in the table:-
+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------------+ |Site |Need Series 1 |Need X25 line |Will take part | +--------------+--------------+--------------+---------------+ |CERN |Yes |No |? | |Zurich |Software only |Yes |Yes | |Rutherford |Yes * |No |Yes | |Helsinki |Software only |Yes |? | |QZ |Yes |No |? | |Belgium |Yes |Yes |? | |GMD |No |No |? | |Dublin |Yes |No |? | +--------------+--------------+--------------+---------------+
* Rutherford are proposing an alternative method of connection to an X25 network for which they seek support and which is defined below. If the request is successful they will not require a Series One computer.
Finance Required
The figures are in USA $.
The air fares are based on 'economy' or similar to Frankfurt.
+--------------+------------------------+
|Origin |Return economy Air fare |
+--------------+------------------------+
|Geneva |327$ |
|Zurich |236$ |
|London |279$ |
|Helsinki |140$ |
|Stockholm |522$ |
|Brussels |212$ |
|Dublin |479$ |
+--------------+------------------------+
Total for 3 trips $6585
The subsistence is based on Rutherford's subsistence rate for Heidelberg of 59$ per night.
64 nights at $3776
3 X25 connections at 9.6K
IBM has suggested that they would be prepared to provide equipment for the duration of the evaluation. None the less the cost of the equipment and software is given.
5 Series One Computers @ $35,000 $175,000
7 Software kits: RPS operating system - 5719/PC6
X25 - 5719/HD1
370 channel software - 5719/CA1 $63,000
Two man months manpower for lead site (estimate). $7,000
Total $255,361
Since it is likely that one or two sites will not take part the estimate should be reduced accordingly.
It is suggested that if IBM is able to fund the project then the funds should be transferred to the association to administer.
Rutherford Participation
Rutherford Laboratory have been connected to the JANET X25 network for eight years and as a consequence have developed an X25 product together with a set of 'Coloured Book' high level protocols which are used in the UK academic community. The Rutherford product is in use at about 10 sites in the UK as well as sites in Ireland, France and CERN. The system uses an IBM 3705 with the ComPro software modifications to EP.
It should be noted that the UK academic community aim to migrate to ISO protocols in the next few years and the migration of the IBM computers is of importance.
Rutherford laboratory would like to modify or adapt the Heidelberg system to use the Rutherford X25 package rather than the Series One. This has a number of advantages for Rutherford, other UK sites and possibly other European sites which are:-
The effort required is 6 man months. To undertake this work Rutherford would require funds of .
Unfortunately it has not proved possible to get fine details of the X400 system to determine an accurate estimate of the manpower requirement. A similar project was undertaken by Leeds University to re-front end the Salford communication package which used a Series One with the Rutherford system which indicates the level of effort required and that the project is feasible.
Rutherford would like to seeks support for this project from IBM.
Dear Gligor,
Enclosed 2 Dollar bills of doubtful vintage for a photo of La Mainaz. Use the change for a charity of your choosing (Dennis maybe).
With best wishes
Paul Bryant.
Dear Mr Birch,
First I must apologize for not having replied to your letter sooner.
I must first tell you something of the policy rules of JANET. It is unfortunately not permitted for any commercial organization of any sort to connect to JANET. All the participants must be government or local area authority funded. This is a legal requirement and has led to the disconnection of a number of organizations from JANET. However it is permitted for you to access facilities on JANET indirectly - that is via the switched public services i.e. dial up or the packet switched services of BT. I also regretfully have to tell you that there is only one EARN node in the UK which provides a gateway between EARN/BITNET and JANET and thus you will be unable to obtain a direct connection to that network. I am sure you will realize that these rules and regulations are imposed by the PTT to guard their monopoly.
The rules of use of JANET by commercial organizations are simple. As long as your connection has been 'sanitized' by passing through the public networks you may freely connect to ant computers but you may not emerge from JANET into other networks which could possible loose BT revenue particularly on international connections.
The rules of EARN are a little more relaxed in that the regulations forbid the use of the network for commercial uses. The definition of commercial use is a bit woolly but if the project is producing information which will be in the public domain then that is non commercial whereas work which results in benefit only to Rolls-Royce, such as V.P.I. would be regarded as commercial.
If you wish to use JANET indirectly then no formal arrangements need be made. If you wish to use EARN and you feel your work is non commercial then this would be best done via a university who would have to confirm that traffic from that university was non commercial and I feel that you would have to operate through some colleague in the university who in effect would be doing the communicating. We are working at the edge of legality here.
Now let me turn to the easier topic of technology. What you need depends on what you want to do. JANET provides file transfer, mail, job transfer and interactive access. Apart from interactive access you will need a computer offering the same communications standards as JANET requires plus a connection to the public packet switched network. You do not mention what computers you have but the network software can be provided on most popular machines such as IBM, VAX and PRIME. The cost of the software varies with machines and it would be better to tell be what machine you have rather than be guessing. Certainly we are talking about a thousand or two pounds. A packet switched connection will cost (off the top of my head) 3000 pounds a year plus call charges. Connections at 2400, 4800, 9600 and 48000 are available at various costs. I guess that if access to universities is the only requirement you may find this expensive.
For interactive access all you will need is a terminal, modem and telephone. There are many dial up access points to JANET, in fact in almost every university. Speeds are generally 300 or 75/1200 but there is some equipment at 2400 bps. I find that the Minor Miracles modem at just over 100 pounds is very suitable at 300 or 75/1200. 2400 modems will set you back 500 pounds. From Derby I guess the nearest access point will be Nottingham University but access will have to be arranged via the local management as the equipment would be owned and run by them.
The list of academic sites accessible is easy - all universities, Research Council establishments and some polytechnic. The exact list runs to 350 computers so I am reluctant to type it here!
Now for EARN. This only provides for file transfer and mail. Thus any suitable machines attached to JANET can pass mail and files to and from machines on EARN, BITNET or NETNORTH.
It may well be that the above has 'turned you off' attempting to use JANET so let me comment on other options. In the USA communications is in a right mess and the only way to find the best way of access to a site is to ask them what facilities they have. In fact the facilities may be different for different machines. If the machines have X25 connections then it is highly likely that you can access them interactively via the public data networks at reasonable costs. All you would need is a modem and an account on the public packet switched service and you would dial up the service at local rates but would have to pay a volume charge on data which is relatively small. If the machine is on ARPA which I know many MIT and government machines are then you may like to contact the Computer Science Department at University College London who have a connection to ARPA. The service they offer is charged and so commercial considerations are not applicable.
Let me turn to your diagram. The only current way of connecting a PC to JANET is interactively although you can get a measure of file transfer through most communications packages by capturing date received or transmitting from a file- crude but effective. You could only operate to a computer you could get an interactive connection to but once on that computer you could use the more powerful facilities it may have for communicating to other machines possibly on BITNET.
There is no problem in communicating text files such as FORTRAN source code or documents. Binary files can normally only be transferred between homogeneous computers and the EARN/JANET gateway would certainly have trouble with most binary files. Your size of file is large for the speed of our networks but not prohibitively so as long as such transfers were not frequent. Mailboxes would have to be arranged on a suitable university computer unless you are aiming to have a large machine on the packet switched networks.
I could go on to give you even further details but I hope I have said enough to give you further guidance and you may then like to come back with further questions.
I would certainly have liked to visit you at Derby to see some 'real' users but unfortunately I have a very heavy schedule until well after the new year and I have to husband by travel budget. Should you think a visit to see me worth while then I could certainly find time to see you.
I hope my comments are useful and not too disappointing.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bryant.
The European Academic Research Network (EARN) is an international network in Europe which has been set up for the use of the academic community. It may not be used for commercial traffic.
Technically, it currently consists of a large number of computers connected together with leased telephone circuits and using the IBM RSCS protocols. It provides file transfer services and in many cases mail services. It is connected to several other networks. In particular it is connected to the BITNET network in the USA which operated on similar principles. It is connected to JANET via a gateway at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and will be connected to other national European academic networks in the future. The network has to migrate to using ISO network standards in the next few years as a condition of CEPT allowing the network to operate.
The network is managed by a Board of Directors - one from each country - who meet regularly. The UK Board of Director's member is currently Paul Bryant of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
The international lines are being generously financed by IBM until 1987 but IBM plays no part in the management of the network.
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory has links to University College Dublin and to CERN. Rutherford is the only EARN site directly connected to the network in the UK and all other traffic will pass through a gateway between JANET and EARN situated at Rutherford. This is to prevent EARN duplicating facilities provided by JANET and dividing the current networking community in the UK.
A license has now been received from DTI to allow the use of EARN in the UK and therefore a service can now be provided for the UK academic community.
Any members of the academic community may use EARN as long as the use is academic and not commercial. EARN may only be used from a site which is a member of EARN.
A site joins EARN by signing the EARN Charter, normally this should be undertaken by the computing centre director. A copy is appended. The signed Charter should be returned to:-
Paul Bryant,
Computing Division
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton Didcot
Oxon
OX11 OQX.
The site will then be sent details of how to use EARN.
In most countries a site joins EARN by acquiring a leased line to another conveniently situated site and agreeing to and signing the EARN Charter. This requires the site to use its best endeavors to ensure that EARN is only used for legitimate purposes and to agree to other sites being connected to EARN via it in order to extend the network. In the UK the interconnection requirements are irrelevant because of the existence of JANET. Never the less the Board of Directors still require that sites sign the EARN Charter in order to bring to their attention the need to restrict the network to non commercial traffic. In practice this is not a new restriction, since sites may not pass commercial traffic across JANET.
In filling in the form the EARN node name to be linked to is UKACRL which is the EARN name for the IBM computer at Rutherford Laboratory. In listing the systems to be connected please give the 'Requested Node Name' as the NRS 'Blue Book' names of the machines most likely to be used for EARN traffic. This will not preclude the use of EARN from any systems on the site but will effect the publicity of the systems within EARN. The 'Serial No' of the systems is of no great importance.
EARN reserve the right to levy a membership fee and a usage fee on members. Currently these are zero. The fees may be needed after IBM withdraw their support and if no other funding can be obtained. Of course, there will be good warning of such charges thus giving sites an opportunity to cease membership to avoid them.
EARN is an association set up under French law. It is operated by a Board of Directors, one from each country. The method of selection of a Board Member by a country is not specified but it is assumed that the member sites in a country will elect a Board Member is some way. The sites and users within a country are responsible for the development of EARN within a country. In addition they may effect the running of EARN internationally via their Board Member. There will be a UK user group meeting as soon as there are enough people to warrant it to elect a Board Member and advise him.
As EARN is based on the RSCS protocols, only services provided by that protocol are available. The services also depend on the particular machine being accessed. There are now about 600 machines in the combined EARN and BITNET networks. The majority of these are IBM but there are significant numbers of machines form other manufacturers.
The principle services are file transfer and mail. It is also possible to find out some facts about a remote machine such as who is logged in. A service called NETSERV is mounted on one machine in each country which provides an information service via file transfer.
Since access to EARN is via a gateway there is some loss in quality. In particular it will not be possible to use such services as finding out who is logged in elsewhere. If there is a demand for these services it may be possible to provide them later. The gateway currently only handles file transfer but mail will be provided in the Autumn.
It is possible to access various other networks in particular in the USA. The Board of Directors have stated that EARN must not be used as a 'transit' network between two other networks. Happily they have agreed that for transit purposes the EARN sites within JANET are considered to be directly connected to EARN.
Dear Dave,
I have been asked to write to you by the Rutherford Communications Coordination Committee concerning the provision of an X28 interface on the CAMTEC PAD. This committee is responsible for advising the site on many aspects of networking and in particular with respect to new services and the deficiencies in existing ones.
It has become apparent that there is considerable advantage in having a 'standard' PAD user interface in that users from other sites and in particular from other countries can use the equipment without training. If this is not the case then there has to be considerable investment in training and help to these itinerants that is wasteful and irritating. It is now becoming clear that the PTTs and most private PADs offer X28 and this situation is unlikely to change until an alternative international standard is agreed in this area. I, in company with many others, have no particular love for X28 but on the other hand there seems little enthusiasm for defining alternative interfaces although CTIG has attempted to get such an interface defined with zero success. The Green Book recommendations cannot be regarded as a sensible definition since it is far from rigorous and the few 'conforming' implementations are all very different.
We would like to see X28 as an alternative to your current interface preferable being selected by the user on initial access. We would also point out that we would not expect such an interface to copy some of the artificial restrictions put in the BT PAD - for example there is no rules that prevent the use of nmemonic addresses. This topic is dealt with in some internal papers which I enclose. Although these are fairly old they are still largely correct and represent our technical view with accuracy.
I think it is pertinent to point out that the COS-4 document advocates the use of X28 and that the expected CEN/CENELEC 'Functional Standard' is highly likely to follow COS-4 recommendations in this area. The SPAG group is almost certain to follow such a recommendation.
Perhaps I should add that it is disappointing that a superior standard to X28 has not emerged and to some extent we must blame ourselves in not producing a suitable specification and pressing it through BT to CCITT.
I look forward to your reply and I hope you will be able to meet this requirement.
On another topic- I am pleased that you have persuaded the Spanish to be interested in your products and I hope that you will succeed in penetrating that market.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bryant.
The Central Computing Division has recently developed a gateway between the European Academic Research Network (EARN) and JANET.
EARN, together with its companion networks BITNET and NETNORTH, is a computer network between academic institutes or research centres for the purpose of world-wide communications. It consists of a set of independent hosts nodes connected by means of leased telecommunications lines in an open, un-meshed topology. A central computer in each country provides international connectivity and some central information services. There are currently some 600 computers world wide in the network.
It was decided to provide a gateway between EARN and JANET to allow the UK academic community to take advantage of the network, and visa versa, with no additional equipment or software being required on sites. EARN only provides for file transfer and mail plus some messaging facilities which are provided by IBM computers. The gateway allows file transfer and mail facilities between the two networks only minor restrictions.
The cost of the international connections are being generously met by IBM until 1987, after that other arrangements will have to be made. IBM have also funded the additional hardware needed at Rutherford plus a small amount of software effort to produce the gateway.
There is a continual program of development within EARN and in particular the European part of the network will migrate to use internationally agreed standards for data transmission. These standards will also be used within JANET and most other European countries within the next few years. In the mean time EARN will provide a very valuable service to allow the UK community to communicate with their colleagues overseas.
The service is only available for non-commercial activities and is free. Charging or alternative funding will be needed when IBM support is withdrawn.
Dear Mr. Perrins,
Some time ago we ordered a copy of 'dBase III' and were given 'Frame Work' in error. This was returned (see attached letter). Later 'dBase II' was delivered and this was also returned to you after a 'phone call. I regret that we still do not have 'dBase III'. I would be most grateful if you would sort the matter out and supply us with the correct product. I suspect that the fault is mine in not monitoring deliveries with the care I ought to.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bryant.
About 9 attended depending which day. In particular Jan Van Herp, Ken Thompson (from the commission), W Roth (from CEPT) and Richard Lloyd. It was disappointing that more countries were not represented.
It was a fairly informal meeting which covered a large number of areas which are causing concern with a lot of success. There was little contention.
The main purpose of the group is now to monitor the working groups. On this occasion each convenor gave a very brief verbal report. The impression is that several groups now have drafts of some sort and that the work is progressing quite well. Most of them will take 3 or 4 meetings to complete. The groups are worried over how the work is to continued to track the standards and the use to which they are put. The view seems to be that they should meet infrequent to review their work.
Drafts were tabled as:-
T/6212 ITAEGS 141 CSMA/CD Single or Multiple LAN OSI CO Transport
Service. OSI CL Network Service.
T/31X ITAEGS 145 Dedicated Packet Mode Access to a PSPDN for OSI
Applications.
XOPEN ITAEGS 155 Portability Guide (how did this get in?)
A/3211 ITAEGS 160 Private Message Handling Systems.
Y11/Y12 ITAEGS 161 X3,X28 and X29.
A/311 ITAEGS 162 Public Message Handling Systems.
These documents, if they have not already, should be studied by the UK experts to ensure that we are happy with the progress and to make appropriate input if necessary. I can supply the papers if they have not already been sent to the 'right people'.
The documents were not studied in this meeting.
The lack of many convenors at the meeting was noted and was disappointing.
The role of observers seems to be a bit confusing. For example is their job to get comment from their side and input it or merely to play a more passive role? It was certainly reaffirmed that the resulting documents would need agreement from both sides although this could be a real problem in the CEPT side as their procedures require a most Baroque authorization procedure which would have to be re initiated if CEN/CENELEC sent a document back for revision.
The new M-IT-01 was tabled but was not studied. From a brief look at a few pages the UK comments tabled at Brussels Open Meeting had been satisfied. To be noted is the inclusion of a new class of Functional Standards 'C' or 'Combined'. These are 'collections' of Functional Standards which together provide some specific function.
It is hoped that review by the member bodies will only involve minor drafting changes and no basic changes.
Probably the most important part of the meeting. It is clear that each ENV has its own format and presentation. This will make them a very scrappy set of documents.
It was agreed that ENVs should follow the style of ISO documents. The first 7 sections will have common headings and in some case the content will be common.
It was agreed that tutorial and some detailed technical matter would be placed in 'annexes' which may or may not be part of the Functional Standard. There was some contention as to whether implementation hints should be placed in an annex or not put in.
The sections them self would have any brief reasoning put in as notes leaving the text to be the bare conformance statements themselves. (Remember that a Functional Standard is really just a conformance statement).
Ken Thompson was very keen to use Functional Standards for procurement but felt that they were not suitable. For example he was concerned over the plugs on the backs of terminals.
This led to a loose discussion that suggested that just as Functional Standards are an abstraction from the base standards Procurement Standards were an abstraction from the Functional ones. We may well see the Commission starting an initiative in this direction as it seems that the Functional Standards are not going to meet their procurement needs.
Certainly there was a feeling that standards bodies should not be interested in procurement.
Received almost no attention except to note that it must correspond to the eventual Functional Standards and it did not matter which had to change. A re draft is going to the member bodies.
A lot of inconclusive discussion. Although regarded as important I do not think the meeting had much idea what to do about it.
Group leader responsible for 'Development Group' containing 6 permanent staff and a number of students. Responsibilities are for:-
1. IBM network products 2 staff. 2. Local area networking 1/2 staff. 3. IBM PC support 1 staff. 4. Hardware developments 2 staff. 5. European Academic Research Network 1/2 staff.
Internal personal duties include:-
1. Chairman Network development meeting. 2. Chairman SERC communications coordination. 3. Secretary Rutherford communications coordination.
External personal duties include:-
1. convenor of Y11/Y12 working group on communications Functional Standards on behalf of BSI. 2. Technical coordinator for EARN and UK board of directors member. 3. Membership of IEE Computing Standards Committee, JNT Transition Meeting, Character Terminal implementors Group and Secretariat of Reseaux Academiques et de Recherche Europeens.
Dr P.F. Lingington - Joint Network Team, Rutherford Appleton Lab.
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK.
N Newman - EEC-ITTTF-Office A25-7/13, Rue de la Loi 200,
B1049, Brussels, Belgium.
et al
National academic networks now exist or are being planned in a number of European countries. Almost all of these networks are either based on, or give access to, the PTT provided public data networks, so that communication between these networks is possible. There is a growing interest in the use of these networks to support international collaborations.
The major barriers to the creation of an effective European infrastructure are the lack of information and the lack of harmonization of means of access to the available services. To try to overcome these lacks, a European Networkshop was set up on an ad hoc basis by a group of those responsible for providing and using the existing networks. Support for the activity was sought from COST 11, the European Science Foundation and the European Committee for Future Accelerators. This workshop was held in Luxembourg from the 13th to the 15th May 1985. The aim was to compliment the previous initiatives taken by Professor Zander in protocol standardization, and promote the practical use of a network infrastructure. About 70 people attended; 17 countries, the CEC and CERN were represented.
The workshop covered a large number of areas of concern in the establishment of a unified infrastructure, from review of the current situation to the discussion of standardization requirements, but the main conclusion was that further and continuing action would be required if the necessary harmonization was to be achieved.
In the concluding session of the workshop, it was agreed unanimously that an association should be established to promote the creation of a European research and academic networking infrastructure. The principles of Open Systems Interconnection should be applied to ensure the widest applicability.
The aims of the activity will be to provide a high quality networking infrastructure for the support of research and academic endeavour on a European basis, using the public data services provided by the European PTTs in a harmonized way. The association will take any necessary actions to ensure that this infrastructure adopts and exploits the most advanced technology available.
The infrastructure should cover the whole of Western Europe (which was taken to be the EEC and COST11 countries). Membership of the association is expected to grow; the initial nucleus has been formed from the national academic networks and the major European Research Laboratories, such as CERN, since these currently have the most advanced common infrastructure, and will benefit immediately from its enhancement. To this nucleus can be added a widening circle of European Industrial Research Centres since these share with the academic institutions a common need for tools to support collaboration. Indeed, it is hoped that this joint approach will complement the ESPRIT objectives of strengthening collaboration between industry and the academic world. It is also hoped that representatives of specific subject oriented user groupings (such as Mathematicians, Biotechnologists, Computer Scientists, etc) will become involved.
Several distinct threads of activity have been identified, corresponding to different timescales. These are:
The relation of ESPRIT to the activity has been discussed at some length and deserves special mention. It is agreed that the ESPRIT community is a particular grouping of network users which would benefit greatly from the rapid creation of a common infrastructure. As such, it was an outstanding example of the type of community this initiative is intended to assist, and could be looked to for assistance in achieving the common aims.
Certain items have been identified by a workshop as requiring immediate action. These were selected on the pragmatic basis of short term need and available resources. For each item, a lead organization or country was identified and charged with ensuring that the progress is maintained. The initial items are:
The association: The creation and progression of proposals for the support, constitution and the longer term organization of the Association. This will include liaison with COST11 and the CEC. (The UK will lead this activity.)
Liaison with CEPT: This activity covers the scope and mechanism for liaison between the association and CEPT. The aim is to establish a significant user voice in the discussions of the public communication infrastructure for Europe. (Switzerland is to be asked to lead the activity.)
Exchange of Information: It was agreed that a regular forum was required to allow for exchange of information between the association members. This would be achieved by establishing the European Networkshops as a regular annual event. Sweden volunteered to host the event in May 1986, and Spain the event in 1987.
Message handling systems: This activity will be based on the CCITT X.400 series of recommendations, and is to cover harmonization of options and facilities to be provided by message handling systems. In the short term the group will coordinate the establishment of a pilot community based on the EAN implementation. (CERN to call an initial meeting, one function of which will be to determine the longer term responsibility. Sweden and FRG expressed willingness to take a major role).
X.25 (1984): This activity is to examine the user requirements and timescales for the provision of the features of X.25 (1984 version) which have been added to support th4e OSI Network Service. The aim is to make input to CEPT on the user view of requirements. (France to lead the activity).
File Transfer: This activity covers both the short term interworking between file transfer systems and the adoption of the OSI File Transfer, Access and Management standards. (CERN to lead the activity).
Full screen, terminal working: There is currently a lack of suitable standards for the support of screen oriented activities, such as editing, across the public packet networks. The aim of the activity is to identify a suitable open solution. (UK to lead the activity).
Collection of Information: The aim is to collate information from the various national networks, and provide initial European directories. This process will be manual; the result will not be complete, but will represent an enormous advance over the current vacuum. It will cover
(CEC will lead the activity).
Exchange of operational information. The aim of this activity is the transfer of operational experience and information between the current academic networks. The scope of the activity is limited to activities up to and including layer 3 of the OSI reference model. (Eire will lead the activity).
Dear Mr. Arfvidson,
At the recent Y11/Y12 meeting we considered the problem of the character codes for terminals connected to PADs.
I am sure you are aware that there is considerable irritation from customers accessing services in other countries who have different national character repertoires. For example, in Sweden various characters are displayed as the Swedish characters that are not in the UK alphabet and such characters become special characters on a UK terminal. Within the standards this appears to be what is intended but is clearly unsatisfactory. These problems may well be resolved with the character sets used in Teletex but it seems unlikely that these techniques will be adapted to the use of terminals connected to PADs.
Y11/Y12 felt that this was an area that your working group could consider at their next meeting in February. It would be very useful if you could advise as to whether the Y11/Y12 Functional Standard should contain any conformance statements on character sets or advice on the subject.
Y11/Y12 wondered whether there was any possibilities of national characters such as 'o/' being transformed into 'o backspace /'. Clearly there are a lot of problems in such a proposal which may rule it out.
We look forward to your thoughts with interest.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bryant.
Convenor of Y11/Y12 working group.
Dear John,
Herewith the PRIME tape with the missing routines.
I also enclose a copy of the Name Registration Scheme content which lists all the machines in the UK which have so far been registers. I guess you do not need such a scheme in New Zealand with the relatively small number of machines. None the less it is very useful to name machines and the form we have used will no doubt give you some ideas. In particular it is very useful to include a country code. The only standard is ISO 3166 which gives the UK as GB. Regretfully we did not find ISO 3166 until after the event. It will be no surprise to you to know that New Zealand is listed as NZ. The two forms of a name- long and short- are because we could not agree. Short is restricted to 12 characters excluding the UK.AC.
The Transition Group has almost finished its work and I enclose a copy of their draft document. This should not be copied widely until finalized to avoid embarrassment but I think it important that you should be aware of its content.
I have been re-reading one or two of the documents Chris Boswell sent me. In the main they are correct but one or two points struck me. It is incorrect to state that people in JANET cannot reply to mail sent from New Zealand. The truth is that it is technically possible but that permission is needed since such activities incur costs. Thus, the argument is one of organization and not technology. There are some statements on the migration of EARN to ISO protocols which are worth updating. We now have money from IBM to mount an experiment with X25 and X400 between the European countries to see how far the product from IBM Heidelberg could replace the current EARN protocols. This experiment will take 6 months and start at the end of the first quarter. It has had to be delayed for various boring reasons. A further comment I would like to make is on tariffs. As I believe I told you, BT has imposed a tariff on EARN traffic which is as near the X25 packet charge as you could get. Thus in principle the cost of X25 traffic or EARN traffic is the same. Whilst IBM supports the connections this does not matter too much but at the end of 1987 when they withdraw the problems we have in JANET for sending you mail will be the same with EARN i.e who pays.
Again on tariffs- I shall be visiting the chairman of the International Telecommunications User Group next week and discussing with him the question of volume tariffs. They are also worries over the matter and would like to see a relaxation of the rules (at least in Europe).The results of these talks may well be to make international leased connections more attractive.
The European Standards organization CEN/CENELEC together with CEPT are drawing up a set of 'Functional Standards'. Functional Standards are statements about how you use a standard and are aimed at ensuring that implementations inter work and are also leading to ways of equipment certification. This is an area worth watching.
Now since I have been doing you a lot of favors I have one to ask of you. I am attempting to locate a relative of mine and I only have a partial address. I suspect he lives in the Canterbury area of New Zealand. The address I have is Terry Bryant, 7 Signal Street, Foxton Beach. I am wondering if you could have a look at the telephone book and see if you can find his full address. Thank you.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bryant.
Dear Colleague
As a member of the European Academic Research Network you and your colleagues are invited to attend the first meeting of the UK branch of the Association. Please fill in and return the slip so that we can book an appropriate room.
The meeting will give us an opportunity to inform you of the current state of the network and its connection to JANET. In addition we will be able to tell you about the plans for development and seek your comments.
There are a number of problems which include finance and the high tariff BT has imposed on our international connections and we would value your comments on how we should approach these.
EARN is controlled by a BOARD of Directors which has a member from each country. The current UK member is Paul Bryant. Under the EARN rules the Board member should be elected and you may well wish to elect someone else. It should be pointed out that the job entails several trips abroad and takes about 25% of someone's time. It is regretfully unfunded.
Attached is a draft agenda. We would be happy to receive additional items but if these require research we would like to receive them as soon as possible.
We look forward to meeting you in February.
Best wishes
Paul Bryant
AGENDA FOR FIRST UK EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH NETWORK MEETING
TO BE HELD 12 FEBRUARY 1986 IN THE CENTRAL COMPUTING
DIVISION OF THE RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORY
10.00-10.30 Coffee.
Presentation on current state of EARN.
The JANET / EARN gateway.
The migration of EARN to use ISO protocols.
Problems encountered using EARN.
Sites are invited to discuss problems of a general
nature.
The financing of EARN lines.
There is insufficient finance to run the EARN lines
and extra finance will be requires from the members
or some other organization. Where should support be
sought?
Election of EARN Board of Directors member.
Any other business.
The meeting should finish at about 15.30.
You asked about EARN. The attached documents give some bits of information that I hope will be sufficient for your purposes and, of course, I shall be happy to give you any further information.
In short IBM is financing a world wide network for academics. Rutherford, in its wisdom, has agreed to be a gateway between this network and JANET. IBM has paid us 6 man months of effort to build the gateway and is paying the cost of the international lines to CERN and Dublin. This network, called EARN and connected to similar networks called BITNET, NETNORTH and GULFNET uses IBM proprietary protocols and has therefore attracted much criticism from the advocates of ISO communications methods. In particular the JNT, the PTTs and the European Community. That is why it has been thought prudent to have a gateway at Rutherford and not let this cancerous growth pervade and pollute the UK. On the other hand the network provides at low cost facilities to the rest of the world and thus cannot be thrown aside lightly. I, with feet firmly in EARN and JANET, tread a careful path!
In its wisdom the CEPT has decreed that EARN may only exist as it is until 1987 and thereafter must use ISO protocols and use the public data networks. To meet this requirement EARN has set up a project to undertake such a migration and to my delight and embarrassment I am the EARN technical coordinator in charge of directing this effort. Thus we see EARN, JANET, CEPT and uncle Tom Cobly and all eventually arriving at the same finishing point. (Believe that and you will believe anything).
EARN is controlled by a Board of Directors with one per country (and not, as popular belief would have it, IBM). I am the UK member.
Thus as a moth to the light I have been sucked into this thing. It entails attending Board meeting 4 times a year (now located in the basement of Charles de Gaulle airport) and arranging 2 EARN technical meetings per year and organizing a number of meetings to sort out the migration project.
Finance is interesting.
IBM have paid for 6 man months of effort for the gateway.
IBM pay the international lines.
RL look after the gateway and EARN users in JANET free in order to gain the Brownie points we need.
IBM pays my travel to Board meetings but not technical meetings. Since re-imbursement is slow I claim off RL and then refund RL when the money comes through.
IBM is funding the migration work and travel and subsistence will be paid.
IBM are also funding a special project with us and providing $25000 for 6 man months to do some work we were going to do anyway, but don't tell them.
The activity costs RL about 25% of my time and you may well ask whether RL should be paying for this as it is the UK community as a whole who are benefitting. Opinion currently is that we should do it.
I attach the proposal that IBM has now accepted for the migration work.
I was not intending to write a report of the Paris meeting as minutes will arrive soon. In brief we had a long discussion on the tariff the PPTs and in particular BT are charging which give cause for concern. We considered the migration project and agreed it. We considered the connection of middle eastern sites with some trepidation. We considered the financing of EARN after IBM withdraw support in 1987. We considered some management concerns.
I hope this is sufficient for you.
Dear James,
Late Christmas Eve I received a telephone call from the CEPT observers for Y11/Y12. It seems they have papers 1, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 but as my own papers are at home I have not checked to see if they are important. I described the work so far and they will be commenting to me on the draft document.
Could you please send them documents and also ensure that they are on the circulation list for agendas, minutes and papers. I have given them the date of the next meetings and they will be attending.
The address is:-
Jan De Heer and Robert Schouten Dutch PTT Headquarters Data Communications Department PO Box 30000 2500 GA The Hague Holland
With best wishes
Paul Bryant.