Draft copy of the minutes from the GISD working group
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1993 17:35:54 +0100
Here follows the draft minutes from the GISD working group. Any comments please
let me know.
DRAFT ******* DRAFT ******* DRAFT
Minutes of the Generic Internet Service Description (gisd) WG
held in Houston, Tx, 1st November 1993.
Vikas Aggerwal vikas@localhost
Tony Bates tony@localhost (Chair)
Steve Blair sblair@localhost
Scott Bradner sob@localhost
Henry Clark henry@localhost
David Conrad davidc@localhost
Vince Fuller vaf@localhost
Gene Hastings hastings@localhost
Matt Hood hood@localhost
Jeanine Kamerdze kamerdze@localhost
Scott Kaplan scott@localhost
Sean Kennedy liam@localhost
Kim Long klong@localhost
Dan Magorian magorian@localhost
Bill Manning bmanning@localhost
Glenn Mansfield glenn@localhost
Stephen Miller smiller@localhost
Pushpendra Mohta pushp-m@localhost
Scott Paisley paisley@localhost
Andrew Partan asp@localhost
Brad Passwaters bjp@localhost
Marsha Perrott perrott@localhost
Henry Sinnreich hsinnreich@localhost
Bernhard Stockman boss@localhost
Marten Terpstra marten@localhost (Secretary)
John Veizades veizades@localhost
Evan Wetstone evanw@localhost
Chris Wheeler cwheeler@localhost
1. Brief overview of GISD
o General Introduction
o Status Report
2. Discussion of FAQ
3. Review of Areas and Aspects
4. Call for volunteers
Tony Bates gave a general overview.
- GISD is aimed at Service providers
- It collects short descriptions of IS aspects.
- tries to make it easier to talk about IS
- not a mandatory document
- definitely something that is needed.
- GISD is divided into areas
- Generic Services
- Information Provision and Coordination
There was a short discussion on focus.
- Is it meant for users ? NO
- Is it meant as a checklist ? NO
- Is it a service profile ? No but could be in the future
An overview of the GISD structure was also given showing how GISD
aspects are documented.
The general structure for each aspect is as follows:
Some concern was raised about the use of minimal/common/maximal in the sense
that this could cause some classification of SPs. However, the general view was
that in the the context of GISD it should be possible to word this in such a
way so as not to make this happen. The idea behind this is just to show the
options rather than to categorise but occasionally it is useful to show
The issue of "who or what constitutes an SP" was raised. The point is anyone
can call themselves a service provider but this is in fact not the issue of
GISD. The point behind GISD is to write a document so people know what
services an SP can potentially provide and how SPs should interact with each
other regarding these services.
Some people also see GISD as a direct template (i.e. a "tick the box" type of
document). Again, this is not the intention of GISD. However, it could be
possible at a later date to produce a template using the terminology
and list of aspects detailed in GISD.
Tony Bates gave a overview of the aspects themselves.
It was noted that "training" is becoming more of an issue for SPs to provide to
their customers and this could an aspect within the "Information and
A status of the current draft was given.
Currently their are 38 aspects defined as a result of two previous IETF BoFs
on the subject. Thus far only 8 aspects had been drafted and the intention is
to get members of the GISD group to draft some of these aspect.
A action was placed on Tony to produce a short GISD aspect guideline documents
giving details of the format required and an index of possible aspects still
needed to be drafted. The intention would be to work on the areas one at a
A basic overview of the process is as follows:
Guideline Document (Format + index)
Areas ----------------> Volunteers (select an aspect)
All 6 areas drafted
A related idea was when sending the index of aspects out, to seek good
candidates for a certain topic outside of the working group.
Several people committed to writing aspects once they'd seen the guideline
The meeting concluded with the general consensus that the document should be
possible to come together for review by Seattle and final copy by Toronto.