# Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies.

Rob Raisch, The Internet Company (raisch@internet.com)
Wed, 6 Oct 1993 07:21:34 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: URL paper final edits"
- Previous message: Dave Bachmann: "Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."
- Next in thread: John Curran: "Internet directory services (was: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute?)"
- Reply: John Curran: "Internet directory services (was: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute?)"
- Reply: Barry Shein: "MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."
- Reply: Dave Bachmann: "Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."

    Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 07:21:34 -0700 (PDT)

    From: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>

    Subject: Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies.

    To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>

    In-Reply-To: <199310060501.AA01686@world.std.com>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.03.9310060733.B10429-d100000@hmmm.internet.com>

I would like to suggest that this problem goes away by deploying a
scalable, distributable mechanism to share the load. And even further
that an incredible amount of data flowing across our wires is there
because of ill considered or redundant retrievals.

Peter Deutsch tells the tale that shortly after he unleashed Archie, it
was responsible for some 90% of all traffic coming in and going out of
Canada. While this is marvelous praise for the usefulness of Archie, I
think that it is a severe condemnation for single site services.

We need some mechanism in place -now- to allow a user to make an informed
retrieval decision. And in the best case, to make this decision for
the user. Some of the questions we need answered are:

How big is the thing I want to retrieve?

What form is it in and can I use it once I get it?

Is it compressed or encoded in some fashion?

Do I have permission to retrieve it?

How much does it cost?

What is the best source from which to retrieve it?

This final one is actually a couple of issues all rolled up into one:

Which repository is closest in terms of network geography?

Does it sit on large enough pipes?

What is the pathway from here to there and how will that affect
the retrieval?

How loaded is it currently?

(We were making a stab at this problem in the URI working group, but got
seriously sidetracked when it became clear that various people had
different fish to fry. And this problem is vastly larger than most are
willing to admit.)

This meta-information of and about information and its repositories is
just another call to arms for the Directory Services people.
Unfortunately, I fear that we are really quite far from ubiquitious
deployment of this most needed technology. We cannot tell who people are.
We cannot tell what they are interested in. We cannot find information,
and we cannot make the proper choices to retrieve it for the lack of a
generalized method of sharing the meta-information we require.

Whois++ is far from deployment. The protocol is still being defined and
the central concept of the Centroid (the bit which shares meta-information
regarding content up the tree) has yet to be proven scalable. There are no
testable, full implementations.

X.500 is far from deployment. While the protocol is defined (some say
overly so), there is no reference implementation which is trivial to test,
and the only work that seems to be going on is in the commercial sector.
"Sure", we are told, "you can have directory services! Did you bring your
check book?"

Please don't misunderstand. I am the last to descry someone from making
an honest buck, but let's face it. There are some technologies which
simply must be freely available and trivial to use. These are the
enabling technologies -- those which allow us to build real services. If
there were no printing presses, there would be no books.

While I can buy a printing press today, there is no way I could have
afforded the third printing press made or even the thirtieth. We are
early implementors who are being penalized unfairly for the fact that we
are creating the very market in which toolsmiths will make their fortunes.

In the case of the printing press, it was a gamble. No one knew, at the
time, that these compendiums of vegetable juice and wood pulp would amount
to anything. In the case of online services, the writing is already on the
wall. Can you make money from online services? I think the answer is
obvious.

I believe that in a struggling, nascent marketplace, little good will come
from gouging people for the very tools we need to hold everything
together. This can only serve to chill the market and this is a time when
we can ill afford to let that happen. (This is, as many here may note, a
particular hot-button with me.)

I'd like to suggest that this is a VERY SERIOUS problem and one deserving
of an awful lot of attention right now. We are on the verge of seeing
millions of new users of the Global Internet, through the efforts of
alliances like PSI/Cable and the influx of PDAs. In some ways this is a
very good thing, but I fear we are looking the oft predicted "end of the
network as we know it" squarely in the face, and we don't as of yet
recognize it. (Funny, I never thought I would be one of the "Imminent
Death of the Network Predicted" Cassandras. ;)

</rr>

- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: URL paper final edits"
- Previous message: Dave Bachmann: "Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."
- Next in thread: John Curran: "Internet directory services (was: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute?)"
- Reply: John Curran: "Internet directory services (was: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute?)"
- Reply: Barry Shein: "MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."
- Reply: Dave Bachmann: "Re: MTV and Panix .plan file dispute? --Panix replies."