Browse Prior Art Database

Of what quality be the UCSB resources evaluators? (RFC0545) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000006033D
Original Publication Date: 1973-Jul-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 2 page(s) / 3K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J.R. Pickens: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC0545: DOI

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 58% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Pickens Request for Comments: 545 UCSB Computer Systems Laboratory NIC: 17791 23 July 1973 References: RFC 531,369. 519


In RFC 531, M.A. Padlipsky complains that the UCSB resource evaluators were derelict in not consulting the Resource Notebook for available documentation. In addition, Padlipsky equates the goals of the resource evaluators to the goals of the software repository advocaters. A misunderstanding exists and perhaps, with this note, may be cleared.

To respond to Padlipsky’s example of UCSB botching login attempts let me make two comments. First, more people than the resource evaluators were accessing the ARPANET. The group of evaluators, at least, knew the login procedure from the Resource Notebook. (By the way, we do have a Multics Programmers Manual.) Second, the OLS TELNET echoes no lower case, which can generate confusion. Even UCSB’s technical liaison, after consulting the Resource Notebook, managed to botch his login.

The first law of resource evaluation, at least for UCSB evaluators, is "read the Resource Notebook!" (RFC 369, incidentally, was based on a Resource Notebook that was barren compared to the notebook of today.) Questions left unanswered by the Notebook are resolved by accessing online documentation first at the NIC and second at the site being evaluated. If, after all this effort, questions still exist, then a consultant is contacted. Consultation may be either online or by telephone and may entail purchasing appropriate user manuals (for some of the resources we evaluated, no manuals existed). Our approach has been to consult the most publicly available documentation first. Only if the advertised paths fail do we resort to personal contact with a (busy) technical liaison. If technical liaisons wish to be consultants for uni...