doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 2075 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc100.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc100.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b07253
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc100.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2075 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                             P. Karp
+Request for Comments: XXXX                                          MITRE
+NIC: 5761                                                26 February 1971
+
+
+                  Categorization and Guide to NWG/RFCs
+
+   The NWG/RFC Guide is an attempt to introduce some order into the
+   NWG/RFC series, which now numbers 102.  The Guide categorizes the
+   NWG/RFC notes, identifies topics under discussion and the relevant
+   NWG/RFCs, and indicates whether the notes are current, obsolete, or
+   superseded.
+
+   A minimum subset of NWG/RFCs is identified.  This subset consists of
+   the NWG/RFCs that one should read to quickly become familiar with the
+   current status of topics.
+
+   For historical reasons and for readers interested in tracing through
+   the stages of development of a topic, a brief summary is given for
+   each NWG/RFC relevant to a particular category.
+
+   This initial Guide is being issued as a NWG/RFC since it establishes
+   the basis for future releases.  So, please comment! Suggestions,
+   criticism, corrections, etc., will be accepted for a period of
+   approximately two weeks.  Be critical as I have not had to implement
+   an NCP and probably have some misconceptions regarding various
+   technical points.  An official version will be released on March 26.
+   The Guide will then be a unique series of documents, separate from
+   NWG/RFCs (as is the Document No. 1, No. 2 series).
+
+   With regard to renumbering NWG/RFCs, I am inclined to keep she
+   sequential numbering scheme presently employed.  The main reason for
+   this position is that the current numbers have both historical and
+   semantic significance.  For example, reference to "#33, #66, #83,
+   etc." is a convenient shorthand (reminiscent of the old corny joke
+   about joke #s) used extensively during meetings.  The list of
+   "current status" NWG/RFC numbers should dispel any fear of
+   maintaining stacks of NWG/RFCs for quick reference.  The subject is
+   not closed, however, and I will entertain any objections,
+   suggestions, etc.
+
+GUIDE TO NETWORK WORKING GROUP/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
+
+   The NWG/RFC notes are partitioned into 9 categories, which in turn
+   are divided into subcategories.  For each category the official
+   document (if any), unresolved issues, and documents to be published
+   are identified.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 1]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   For each subcategory, relevant NWG/RFCs are listed and a brief
+   description of the topics addressed in each note is given.
+
+   The categories are again listed and the current NWG/RFCs identified
+   (p. 23).  The NWG/RFCs in the list comprise the subset defining
+   "current status".  Note that most of the documentation in the subset
+   addresses topics in Category D - Subsystem Level Protocol, where at
+   the present time most issues are unresolved.
+
+   Finally, the NWG/RFCs are listed by number, with a reference to the
+   relevant categories (p. 26).
+
+A. ADMINISTRATIVE
+
+A.1 Distribution list
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 3, 10, 16, 24, 27, 30, 37, 52, 69, 95
+
+   The distribution list contains names, addresses, and phone numbers
+   for recipients of NWG/RFCs.  The most recent list, NWG/RFC 95,
+   designates the Technical Liaison as the recipient for each site and
+   supersedes all other RFCs in this category.
+
+A.2 Meeting announcements
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 35, 43, 45, 54, 75, 85, 87, 99
+
+   General network working group meetings are held approximately every
+   three months.  Special subcommittee meetings are held on an ad hoc
+   basis.  All related NWG/RFCs are obsolete except 87, announcing a
+   graphics meeting to be held at MIT in April and 99, announcing a
+   general NWG meeting, Atlantic City, May 16-20.
+
+A.3 Meeting minutes
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 21, 37, 63, 77, 82
+
+   The meeting minutes present highlights of issues discussed at general
+   NWG meetings and report definite decisions that are made.
+
+   To be published: A NWG/RFC will be published by Dick Watson, SRI,
+   reporting on the NWG meeting held at the University of Illinois,
+   February 17-19.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 2]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+A.4 Guide to NWG/RFCs
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 84, 100
+
+   The NWG/RFC Guide categorizes the NWG/RFC notes, identifies topics
+   under discussion, the relevant NWG/RFCs, and denotes whether the
+   notes are current, obsolete, or superseded.  Included in this
+   category are lists of NWG/RFCs, ordered by number (as in 84) and/or
+   by author.
+
+A.5 Policies
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 37, 41, 48, 53, 54, 72, 73, 77, 82,
+               102
+
+   NWG/RFCs categorized as policy contain official stands on issues
+   i.e., the position taken by S. Crocker, NWG Chairman.  The issues
+   covered are varied.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   77 and 82 discuss meeting policy.
+
+   72, 73, 77, and 82 discuss the decision to delay making changes to
+   the Host/Host protocol in order to first gain experience with the
+   network.  A committee to propose specific changes has been formed.
+
+   37 discusses changes to the Host/Host protocol and the schedule for
+   introducing modifications.
+
+   53 sets forth the mechanism for establishing and modifying the
+   official Host/Host protocol.
+
+   54 presents the initial official protocol.
+
+   48 presents some suggestions for policy on some outstanding issues.
+
+   41 requests the tagging of IMP-IMP teletype messages.
+
+   Documentation conventions for NWG/RFCs are given in 24, 27, and 30.
+
+   25 and 18 designate uses for particular link numbers. 25 has been
+   superseded by 37 and 48. 18 is obsolete.
+
+   102 discusses the issuing of Document #2, in lieu of the official
+   modification procedure outlined in 53.
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 3]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+B. HOST/IMP PROTOCOL (LEVEL 1)
+
+   Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822 (latest revision - February
+   1971)
+
+   Unresolved issues: Location of first byte of data in a message.
+
+   To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker and
+   will, among other things, resolve the first byte location issue.
+
+B.1 General Topics
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 17, 17a, 19, 21, 33, 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 102
+
+   In particular:
+
+   17 raised several questions regarding HOST/IMP protocol.  In 17a,BBN
+   responds to the questions.
+
+   19 proposes that the hosts control the ordering of IMP/Host traffic
+   rather than getting messages delivered in the order received by the
+   IMP.  This proposal is counter to BBN's position, specifically
+   expressed in 47; that is, buffering is a Host rather than an IMP
+   function.  The purpose of buffering in the IMP is to handle surges of
+   traffic, thus IMP buffers should be empty.  NWG/RFC 19 is obsolete.
+
+   21 discusses changes to BBN Memo No. 1822.  The remarks are obsolete.
+
+   33 contains a general description of the interface between a host and
+   the IMP.  NWG/RFC 47 comments on NWG/RFC 33.
+
+   The use of RFNMs (type 10 and type 5 messages) to control flow is
+   discussed in NWG/RFCs 36, 37 and 46.  The official position in "cease
+   on link" (i.e., discontinue the mechanism) is presented in 102 and
+   renders obsolete the remarks in 36, 37, and 46.
+
+   38 discusses the changes to message format that would be necessary if
+   multiplexing connections over links was allowed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 4]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+B.2 Marking/Padding
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 44, 48, 49, 50, 54, 64, 65, 67, 70, 102
+
+   In particular:
+
+   102 presents the decision of the Host/Host protocol committee to
+   abandon the marking convention and to ignore padding.  The issue of
+   whether to have the first data byte begin after 72 bits of header or
+   to use double physical transmission (NWG/RFC #s 65, 67) is discussed.
+
+   The former official position is expressed in 54: "All regular
+   messages consist of a 32 bit leader, marking, text, and padding.
+   Marking is a (possibly null) sequence of zeros followed by a 1;
+   padding is a 1 followed by a (possibly null) sequence of zeros."
+
+   Several proposals to eliminate marking have been made. 64 suggests a
+   hardware modification to eliminate marking/padding by adding
+   appropriate counters to Host/IMP interfaces. 65 suggests breaking
+   regular messages into two messages. 67 supports 65. 72 and 73 suggest
+   that such changes be postponed until sufficient experience with the
+   network is gained.
+
+   44 introduces the notion of double padding and presents two
+   alternative approaches when a message does not end on a Host word
+   boundary:
+
+      a) The host provides padding in addition to the IMPS ("double
+         padding")
+
+      b) The host shifts messages to end on a word boundary.
+
+   48 explains double padding in more detail and discusses the pros and
+   cons.  A suggestion is made to use marking to adjust the word
+   baundary (alternative b).  NWG/RFCs 49 and 50 are concurrences with
+   48.
+
+   70 presents a method to handle the stripping of padding from a
+   message.
+
+   All NWG/RFCs in this category have been superseded by 102.
+
+C. HOST/HOST PROTOCOL (LEVEL 2)
+
+   Host/Host protocol specifies the procedures by which connections for
+   inter-Host interprocess communication over the network are
+   established, maintained, and terminated.  The software which
+   implements the protocol within each Host is called the Network
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 5]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   Control Program (NCP).  The topics included in this category are
+   connection establishment and termination, flow control, interrupt
+   handling, error control and status testing, dynamic reconnection, and
+   the relationship between connections and links.
+
+   Official documents: Document No. 1 by S. Crocker, 3 August 1970, with
+   modifications presented in NWG/RFC 102.
+
+   Unresolved issues: Length of control messages
+                      Location in message of first byte of data
+                      Flow control algorithm
+                      Socket identification format
+
+   To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker and
+   will resolve the first three issues.  A NWG/RFC will be written by J.
+   Heafner, in collaboration with E. Meyer and G. Grossman. presenting
+   the pros and cons on alternative proposals for socket number
+   identification.
+
+C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50,
+               54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 93, 102
+
+   The official Host/Host protocol presented in Document No. 1 is based
+   on the proposals, discussions, acceptance, and rejection of ideas in
+   the above list of NWG/RFCs, up to and including 59.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   9, 11, and 22 represent an early attempt at a Host/Host protocol. 11
+   supersedes 9 and 22 contains some modifications to control message
+   formats presented in 11.  The protocol was not considered powerful
+   enough because it didn't provide for inter-host communication without
+   logging in.  This protocol was thrown out as a result of a network
+   meeting in December 1969.
+
+   33 is the basis for the current protocol.  It was presented at the
+   SJCC, 1970.
+
+   36 is a modification of 33.  It discusses connection establishment
+   without switching, flow control, and introduces the idea of
+   reconnection.  Control commands are summarized. 36 was distributed at
+   a Network meeting in March 1970.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 6]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   37 presents the reaction to 36 and presents ideas on reconnection
+   flow control and decoupling of links and connections.  Provisions of
+   error detection, status testing, experimentation and expansions are
+   discussed.
+
+   38, 39, 40, 44, 49 and 50 are comments written in response to the
+   meeting. 46 is also a comment but in the form of a rewrite of 33. 46
+   introduces the notion of interrupts, INT, and ECO for status testing.
+
+   47 concerns the philosophy behind the notion of a link.
+
+   48 summarizes the issues discussed in the above NWG/RFCs.
+
+   54 is the initial official protocol submitted for criticism,
+   comments, etc.  It introduces a new mechanism for flow control in
+   which the receiving host allocates buffer space and notifies the
+   sending host of the space available.
+
+   57 and 59 comment on 54.
+
+   Document No. 1 differs from NWG/RFC 54 as follows: commands GVB and
+   RET have been added for flow control and error condition codes have
+   been added to ERR.  NWG/RFC 102 presents some modifications to
+   Document No. 1: fixed lengths are specified for ECO, ERP, and ERR; a
+   new pair of commands RST and RRP (suggested in 57) are added.
+
+   60, 61, and 62 propose new Host/Host protocols, quite different from
+   the current official protocol. 62 supersedes 61. 60 and 62 are worth
+   considering for possible implementation in future protocols.
+   Hopefully, more documents of a similar nature will be generated as
+   experience is gained with the current protocol.
+
+   NWG/RFCs 65 and 68 comment on Document No. 1.
+
+   93 points out an ambiguity in Document No. 1 regarding the
+   requirement of a message data type in the message sent from server
+   socket 1.  The ambiguity is resolved by 102 which eliminates message
+   data type from level 2 protocol.
+
+C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques)
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 23, 33, 36, 44, 46, 48, 55, 70, 71, 74, 89
+
+   This category includes RFCs which give details of system calls, table
+   structures, implementation techniques, etc.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 7]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   In particular:
+
+   NWG/RFCs 9, 11, and 22 are obsolete
+
+   23 is a general statement on sending or receiving multiple control
+   messages in a single communication.
+
+   33 discusses the system calls used for interaction between the NCP
+   and a user process.
+
+   36 describes a possible implementation giving table structures and
+   their interrelationships.
+
+   44 lists the system calls that SDC feels should operate, includes
+   spec. of calls to NCP.
+
+   NWG/RFC 48 presents Postel's and Crocker's view on the environment in
+   which a host time-sharing system operates, suggests some system
+   calls, and presents a design to illustrate the components of an NCP.
+
+   55 presents a prototypical NCP which implements the initial official
+   protocol specified in 54.  It is offered as an illustrative example.
+
+   70 gives some techniques for stripping the padding from a message.
+
+   71 presents the method employed by the CCN-Host at UCLA to
+   resynchronize flow control when an input error occurs.
+
+   74 documents the implementation of sections of the NCP at UCSB.
+
+   89 gives a brief description of the "interim interim NCP" (IINCP) on
+   the MIT Dynamic Modeling PDP-6/10 used to run some experiments.
+
+C.3 Connection Establishment and Termination
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 50, 54, 60, 62
+
+   The NWG/RFCs in this category present the system calls and control
+   commands used to establish and terminate connections, i.e., the
+   handshaking that must transpire before connections are established or
+   terminated.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   36 presents a rough scenario of connection establishment which
+   differs from that specified in 33 in that establishment does not
+   include procedures for switching procedures.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 8]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   39 suggests the addition of a command TER to supplement CLS.
+
+   44 discusses the use of the CLS command and suggests that two
+   commands BLS and CLS be adopted.
+
+   46, 46, and 50 all discuss queuing of RFCs.
+
+   54 presents the initial official method for establishing and
+   terminating connections.
+
+   60 and 62 present schemes different from the official protocol.
+
+C.4 Flow Control
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 19, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47, 54, 59, 60, 65, 68, 102
+
+   The NWG/RFCs in this category address the problem of controlling the
+   flow of messages from the sending socket to the receive socket.  The
+   official position is stated in Document No. 1 with an unresolved
+   issue pending as described in NWG/RFC 102.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   19 suggests that Hosts may want the capability of agreeing to lock
+   programs into core for more efficient core-to-core transfers.  This
+   may require different handling of RFNMs.
+
+   33 describes the use of RFNM (type 10 rather than 5) on a link to
+   control flow.  A control command RSM (resume) is defined to allow the
+   host to signal for resumption of message flow. 46 describes the same
+   technique.
+
+   37 describes the effect some proposed changes (for reconnect and
+   decoupling of connections and links) would have on RFNMs and "cease
+   on link."
+
+   46 (MIT's rewrite of protocol) introduces BLK and RSM commands as an
+   alternative to "cease on link", SPD and RSM commands.
+
+   47 presents BBN's position that buffering be handled by the Host, not
+   the IMP.
+
+   54 introduces a new flow control mechanism in which the receiving
+   host is required to allocate buffer space for each connection and not
+   notify the sending host of bit sizes.  A new command, ALL to allocate
+   space is sent from the receiving host to the sending host.  With this
+   new mechanism, 33, 37, 46, and 47 become obsolete.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                            [Page 9]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   59 presents the objections of Project MAC and Lincoln Labs to the
+   flow control mechanism introduced in 54.  Their preference is for
+   "cease on link" which allocates buffer space on demand.
+
+   60, which defines a simplified NCP protocol, presents a method of
+   flow control based on the requirement that connections are full
+   duplex.
+
+   65 comments on Document No. 1.  With respect to flow control, it
+   disagrees with the allocation mechanism and the introduction of
+   irregular message to make the cease mechanism work.
+
+   68 proposes modifications to RFNM by defining three forms which would
+   insure control of data and would replace the memory allocation
+   mechanism.
+
+   102 eliminates the cease mechanism and introduces potential
+   modifications to the flow control mechanism.  The latter will be
+   resolved and presented in Document No. 2.
+
+C.5 Error Control and Status Testing
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 2, 37, 39, 40, 46, 48, 54, 57, 102
+
+   This category addresses schemes for detecting and controlling errors
+   and for Host status reporting and testing.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   2 talks about error checking and gives an algorithm for implementing
+   a checksum.  It also recommends that Hosts should have a mode in
+   which positive verification of all messages is required.
+
+   37 brings up the topics of error detection and status testing, which
+   are expanded by RAND in 39 and 40. 39 introduces control commands ERR
+   for error checking and QRY, HCU, and HGD for status testing. 40
+   expands on the discussion, suggests error codes, introduces RPY as a
+   response to QRY, and suggests that NOP could be used for reporting
+   Host status.
+
+   46 concurs with 40 on ERR and introduces ECO to test communication
+   between NCPs.
+
+   48 recommends that ERR, as presented in 40 and 46, be adopted, that a
+   distinction be made between resource errors and other error types,
+   that ECO, presented in 46, be of variable length, and that an ECO,
+   ERP command pair be adopted.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 10]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   54 officially specifies the control commands ERR, ECO, and ERP.  The
+   official protocol doesn't include a specific list of error types nor
+   does it recommend the action to be taken.  Suggestions for extensions
+   to error detection and recovery and Host/Host status testing are
+   encouraged.
+
+   57 presents a list of error types and suggests new commands OVF for
+   overflow errors and RST/RSR for host status testing.
+
+   102 sets fixed lengths for ERR, ECO, and ERP control commands.  RST
+   and RSR are adopted.
+
+C.6 Interrupt
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 102
+
+   The interrupt system call and the INT control commands are used to
+   interrupt a process.  This is actually a third level issue.  The
+   NWG/RFCs leading up to the decision to include INR and INS in the
+   official protocol are summarized below.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   46 introduces the INT command as a method for interrupting a process.
+
+   48 recommends adoption of INT with the restriction that the feature
+   should not be used during communication with systems which scan for
+   interrupts and that INT should not be used on non-console type
+   connections (see D.2).
+
+   49 expands on the explanation of INT. 50 concurs with proposal 46,
+   that INT is useful.
+
+   54 induces INT, INS control commands in the official protocol as an
+   escape mechanism, where interpretation is a local matter.
+
+   102 discusses synchronization of interrupt signals, presents two
+   implementation schemes, and relegates the topic to third level
+   protocol.  INS should be used to indicate a special code in the input
+   stream.
+
+C.7 Dynamic Reconnection
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50
+
+   The notion of dynamic reconnection was introduced early in the
+   Host/Host protocol design.  However, the consensus was that it
+   introduced complexities with which the initial NCP implementations
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 11]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   did not want to cope.  The need for dynamic reconnection was
+   questioned; NWG/RFC 48 explains why it was included and considered
+   useful.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   33 introduces the concept of switching connections to the Logger. 36
+   presents a scheme for dynamic reconnection, i.e., reconnection can
+   take place after the flow is started.
+
+   37 presents two methods suggested by BBN for handling reconnection.
+
+   38 discusses changes to proposed END and RDY control commands that
+   would be necessary if connections were multiplexed over links.
+
+   39 states that dynamic reconnection is too complex.
+
+   44 presents two cases where reconnection could be used, suggests that
+   the cases be separated, and recommends implementation of only the
+   case of a simple connection switch within the same Host.
+
+   46 recommends that dynamic reconnection be reserved for further
+   Host/Host protocol implementations.
+
+   48 discusses the aesthetics of dynamic reconnection in detail but
+   concedes that it won't be included in the initial protocol. 49 and 50
+   concur with the decision.
+
+C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 37, 38, 44, 48
+
+   A connection is an extension of a link.  The NWG/RFCs in this
+   category discuss this relationship.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   37 presents the pros and cons on decoupling connections and links. 38
+   recommends that connections be multiplexed over links.  Two cases
+   where this would be useful are presented.  The effect on the proposed
+   protocol is discussed.  Both 37 and 38 suggest the inclusion of the
+   destination socket as part of the text of the message and recommend
+   that messages should be send over any unblocked link.
+
+   44 suggests the use of link numbers in control commands (except RFSs)
+   due to the 1 to 1 correspondence between links and foreign socket
+   numbers.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 12]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   48 recommends leaving links and connections coupled.
+
+C.9 Other
+
+   Other topics that fall into the category of Host/Host protocol are:
+
+   Marking/Padding: see B.2
+
+   Record/Message Boundaries: see D.5
+
+   Experimentation and Expansion.  The assignment of links for
+   experimentation and expansion is discussed in NWG/RFC #s 37 and 48.
+
+   Instance Tag: The addition of an instance tag to the socket
+   identifier is introduced in 46, is supported by 49 and 50, and is not
+   recommended in 48.  The matter is unresolved (see "To be published",
+   section C).
+
+   Broadcast Facility: A control command to implement a broadcast
+   facility as introduced in 39.  It was not supported in 48.
+
+D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL (LEVEL 3)
+
+   Official document: none
+
+   Unresolved issues: all
+
+   To be published: Three committees have been set up to address user
+   level issues, specifically: logger, console, and TELNET protocols
+   (D.1, D.2, D.3); data transformation (D.4); and, graphics protocol
+   (D.6).  Status reports will be published prior to the next Network
+   meeting (May 1971).  In addition, a companion paper to 98 discussing
+   console protocol has been promised by MIT MAC and G. Grossman (Ill.)
+   will issue an RFC proposing a file transmission protocol.
+
+D.1 Logger Protocol
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 33, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 79, 82, 88, 91, 93,
+               97, 98
+
+   Logger Protocol specifies the procedures by which a user gets
+   connected to a remote Host.  The logger is a process, always in
+   execution, which listens for login requests.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 13]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   In particular:
+
+   33 proposes that the logger listen to calls on socket #0.  It then
+   switches to the assigned socket.  The sequence of events is
+   illustrated.
+
+   46 proposes a User Control and Communication (UCC) module, which
+   implements logger protocol and permits the logger to interact with
+   the NCP.  It proposes the use of two full-duplex pseudo-typewriter
+   connections.
+
+   48 proposes that sockets <U, H, 0> and <U, H, 1> designate either the
+   input and output sockets of a copy of the logger or the console
+   sockets.
+
+   49 is a write-up of a combination of the proposals presented in 46
+   and 48. 49 presents the disadvantages of the new proposal and reverts
+   back to supporting the UCC of 46.
+
+   50 indicates RAND support for the UCC presented in 46.
+
+   56 defines a send-logger and a receive-logger with a full-duplex
+   connection.  The logger handles one request at a time; requests are
+   queued.  The receiver logger is identified as user 0 on socket 0.
+
+   66 introduces a dial-up protocol (Initial Connection Protocol, ICP)
+   to get a process at one site in contact with the logger at another
+   site.
+
+   74 documents the logger implemented at UCSB.
+
+   77 and 82 report the discussion of logger protocol at the FJCC 1970
+   Network meeting.  E.  Harslem and E. Meyer agreed to write proposals.
+
+   79 discusses a conflict between Document No. 1 and NWG/RFC 66
+   regarding the use of ALL prior to connection establishment.
+
+   80 presents a variation of 66 that rectifies the conflict. 80 also
+   suggests that ICP should apply to more than just the logger i.e., let
+   user 0 signify the logger.
+
+   88 documents the logger implemented as part of NETRJS, which allows
+   access to RJS at UCLA's CCN.  The ICP described in 66 and 80 is
+   adhered to.  The logger is designated as user 0.
+
+   91 contains a description of the logger for the PDP-10 at Harvard.
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 14]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   93 points out an ambiguity in the Host/Host protocol of Document No.
+   1 regarding the requirement of message data type for ICP.  The
+   ambiguity is rectified by NG/RFC 102.
+
+   97 includes the ICP (as proposed in 80) used to establish connection
+   to NIC.
+
+   98 is the logger protocol proposal issued by E. Meyer.
+
+D.2 Console Protocol
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 20, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 82, 88, 91, 96,
+               97, 98
+
+   Console protocol will specify conventions for what goes out over the
+   network.  Included are conventions for echoing, character set,
+   interrupt or break, end of line, message formats.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   20 suggests a standard of 7-bit ASCII in an 8-bit byte, with the high
+   order bit 0.
+
+   44 discusses three possibilities for echoing over the network
+   (echoing, no echoing, optional echoing) and states a preference for
+   no echoing. 44 also states a preference for establishing a network
+   common code where all code conversion is performed on outgoing text;
+   thus, all incoming text would be in the common code.
+
+   46 proposes the use of interrupt on the third level.  An interrupt
+   means "quit" when sent from a requestor process to a created process.
+   The command level is entered.
+
+   48 and 49 relegate issues of echoing and code conversion to third
+   level protocol.
+
+   50 and 56 support adoption of ASCII for the network standard
+   character set. 56 also discusses two uses of break characters
+   (interrupt): in a panic situation and to exit from subsystem.  Three
+   message formats (character by character, end by carriage return,
+   several command lines per message) are discussed.  A recommendation
+   that echoing be handled locally is made.
+
+   66 specifies that the standard console use 7-bit ASCII in 8 bits with
+   the 8th bit on (note the conflict with 20).  It also specifies the
+   use of INR for break or interrupt.
+
+   74 documents console protocol implemented by UCSB.
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 15]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   77 and 82 report on console protocol topics (echoing, full vs half
+   duplex) discussed at the Network meeting, FJCC 1970.
+
+   88 documents conventions used by NETRJS for RJS at CCN, UCLA.
+
+   91 discusses code standards.
+
+   96 and 97 document conventions used for NIC at SRI ARC.
+
+   98 proposes specifications for general console communications and
+   addresses full vs half duplex, character escapes, and action
+   characters.
+
+D.3 TELNET Protocol
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 15, 33, 76, 80, 83, 91, 96, 97
+
+   TELNET is a subsystem permitting a teletype-like terminal at a remote
+   Host for function as a teletype at the serving Host.  TELNET protocol
+   specifies user level interface to the network by way of network
+   system calls.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   15 introduces the TELNET concept and presents a sample dialogue
+   between Utah's PDP-10 and SRI's 940.  System primitives are proposed.
+
+   33 describes TELNET and gives essentially the same example as in 15.
+
+   76 describes a terminal user control language for Illinois's PDP-11
+   ARPA Network Terminal System.  The protocol defined permits the user
+   to utilize the network at a symbolic level.
+
+   80 and 83 introduce the concept of a Protocol Manager that can manage
+   protocol sequences between consoles and the network.  The Form
+   Machine (see D.4) can be used for translations.
+
+   91 contains a proposal for a User/User protocol that has the ability
+   to function as TELNET.
+
+   96 describes a series of experiments to be conducted using the TELNET
+   subsystem at SRI ARC.
+
+   97 presents a detailed proposal for a standard TELNET protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 16]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+D.4 NIL, DEL, and Form Machines
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 42, 51, 63, 80, 83, 96
+
+   NIL, DEL, and Form Machines are proposals of similar methods for
+   adapting user programs and/or data to the network.  A committee
+   chaired by J. Heafner has been formed to plan, implement, and
+   exercise a language for reconfiguring data streams.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   NIL (Network Interchange Language), described in 51, introduces the
+   concept of an abstract network machine which would permit a user to
+   consider the computer network as an overall computing facility.  All
+   dialogue would take place between hosts and the network machine.  NIL
+   permits the description of the environment and the description of the
+   Front End of an interactive system.  Sublanguages for describing
+   control, operation, data declaration, and environment are used.  With
+   NIL, the network machine can operate in standard mode as well as
+   user-defined extended mode.  The network machine can act as a user of
+   a Host; conversely, a Host can be a user of a network machine.  Each
+   Host will have a generator to generate a translator from the
+   descriptive sublanguage inputs.
+
+   DEL (Decode - Encode Language), described in 5, utilizes a front end
+   translator at the using site to translate the using site characters
+   to the server host character set.  Return messages are subsequently
+   translated locally to the local standard.  Immediate feedback in an
+   interactive mode is also handled locally.  DEL can be used for the
+   operation of large display-oriented systems.  Provisions are given
+   for representing a universal hardware.  The syntax is included.
+
+   Two proposals for the Form Machine have been given. 80 introduces the
+   concept of the Form Machine, an experimental software package
+   operating on regular expressions that describe data formats. 83
+   presents a different approach: a syntax-driven interpreter which
+   operates on a grammar which is an _ordered_ set of replacement rules.
+   83 contains a description of the Form Machine with some examples of
+   replacement rules for particular data types.  Application of the
+   Form-Machine to program protocols is also discussed.
+
+   31 proposes a message description language as a standard symbolic
+   method for defining and describing binary messages.  In the future,
+   the descriptive language could be used as input to generators of data
+   translation programs.
+
+   42 proposes the use of message data types prior to the development of
+   network languages specifying the syntax and semantics of messages.
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 17]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   Programs would extract the message data type and transform the data
+   accordingly.  Both standard and local types would be handled (as in
+   RFC #51), probably using tables stored at one location such as NIC.
+   62 presents data typed codes.
+
+   96 includes a discussion on a Front End for NLS (T) and suggests that
+   further study be given to standard languages as presented in 51.
+
+D.5 Record/Message Boundaries
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 13, 49, 50, 58, 63, 77, 82, 91
+
+   Positions that no special structures should be imposed on data
+   transmission are presented in 49 and 91. 50 and 58 disagree. 58
+   claims that logical and physical message distinctions exist and that
+   logical messages must begin on a physical message boundary.
+
+   63 reports a decision from a meeting that records may begin anywhere
+   in a message.  In a later meeting, 77 and 82, the issue was reopened.
+   Discussion included consideration of methods of indicating the end of
+   message and alternatives were given.  Earlier RFCs had discussed
+   these alternatives: 13 proposes a 0 length message to specify EOF; 50
+   proposes use of a bit count preceding the transmission and discusses
+   solutions to the problem of dropping bits.
+
+D.6 Network Graphics
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 43, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 94
+
+   Proposals specifying network graphics protocol are in the formative
+   stages.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   43 mentions LIL, in interpretable language at Lincoln Labs that can
+   handle interactive graphics.
+
+   77 and 82 discuss the formation of a working group to specify
+   procedures for using graphics over the network.
+
+   80 states that graphics oriented descriptions will added to the Form
+   Machine.
+
+   86 is a proposal for a network standard format for a data stream to
+   control graphics displays. 87 announces a network graphics meeting to
+   be hosted by MIT and suggests discussion topics.  Both 86 and 87 are
+   attempts to stimulate some interest in the generation of graphics
+   protocol proposals.
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 18]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   89 describes a Harvard-MIT graphics experiment using the network.
+
+   94 comments on 8 and presents an alternate proposal.
+
+D.7 File Transmission
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 13, 38, 77, 82, 91
+
+   The subject of file transmission over the network is at the informal
+   discussion stage.  Nothing substantive has been published as NWG/RFCs
+   om this category.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   13 proposes using a 0 length message to specify EOF.
+
+   38 recommends routing multiple connections over the same link to
+   handle file transmissions over the network.
+
+   77 and 82 summarize comments on file transmission problems aired at
+   the Network meeting in Houston, Nov. 1970.
+
+   91 describes how PDP-10 file transmission could be handled over the
+   network.
+
+E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK
+
+   Official document: none
+
+   Unresolved issues: Should NCPs be altered to keep measurement
+   statistics?
+
+E.1 General
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+   Both 77 and 82 report on the comments made at the Network meeting,
+   Houston 1970, regarding network measurements.  UCLA and BBN are
+   officially responsible for gathering network statistics.  Is it
+   reasonable to alter the NCP to keep statistics?
+
+E.2 Clock
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 28, 29, 32, 34
+
+   The NWG/RFCs in this category discuss requirements for a clock to
+   measure network delay.
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 19]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   In particular:
+
+   28 is concerned with the installation of a real-time clock at SRI ARC
+   and requests comments concerning network time standards for delay
+   measurement.
+
+   29 responds to 28, stating that a millisecond clock should be
+   sufficient.
+
+   32 discusses the desirability of adding a network clock for
+   measurement of user-oriented message delays.  A one millisecond
+   resolution is a reasonable specification.  The problems of clock
+   synchronization and long term accuracy are addressed.
+
+   34 describes the SRI ARC clock on the XDS 940.
+
+F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE
+
+   NWG/RFC #s 78, 89
+
+   Reports on experience with the network are starting to be published.
+   As sites begin to get their NCPs up, more notes in this category
+   should be generated and are encouraged.
+
+   In particular:
+
+   78 describes NCP checkout between UCSB and RAND.
+
+   89 describes initial activity on the network between MIT MAC Dynamic
+   Modelling/Computer Graphics PDP-6/10 System and the Harvard PDP-10.
+
+G. SITE DOCUMENTATION
+
+   Official document.  None
+
+   Unresolved issues: Procedures for entering documentation at NIC.
+
+   To be published.  Dick Watson, SRI ARC, will publish documentation
+   specifications and procedures.
+
+G.1 General
+
+   NWG/RFC #s 77, 82
+
+   77 and 82 contain general comments on storing system documentation
+   on-line.
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 20]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+G.2 NIC
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
+
+   77 and 82 contain summaries of Engelbart's discussion of NIC at the
+   Network meeting in Houston, November, 1970.
+
+   96 and 97 contain details of third level protocol implementation of
+   NLS (NIC).
+
+G.3 UCSB
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 74
+
+   74 presents specifications for network use of the UCSB On-Line System
+   (OLS).
+
+G.4 CCN (UCLA)
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90
+
+   88 describes the protocol implementation for RJE.
+
+   90 specifies the resources available at CCN, operating as a Network
+   Service Center.
+
+G.5 University of Illinois
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 76
+
+   76 describes the PDP-11 ARPA Network Terminal System implementation.
+
+H. ACCOUNTING
+
+   To be published: B. Kahn, BBN, will generate an RFC discussing
+   important considerations for an accounting mechanism.
+
+   NWG.RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+   This topic will be addressed by the long-range Host/Host protocol
+   committee, set up at the Network meeting, University of Illinois,
+   February 1971.
+
+   77 and 82 discuss the need for some network accounting scheme,
+   primarily for sites classified as Service Centers rather than
+   Research Centers.
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 21]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+I. OTHER
+
+   The topics grouped in this catch-all category may in the future
+   constitute independent categories.
+
+I.1 Hardware
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 12, 64
+
+   12 contains diagrams that indicate the logical sequence of hardware
+   operations which occur within the IMP/Host interface.
+
+   64 proposes a hardware solution to getting rid of marking. 64 has
+   been superseded by 102.
+
+I.2 Request for References
+
+   NWG/RFC #s: 81
+
+   81 requests references concerning communications.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 22]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+                        Issues and Current NWG/RFCs
+
+   Subset reflecting current status:
+
+      NWG/RFC #s: 5, 12, 30-33, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53-56, 60, 62, 66, 74,
+                   76-78, 80-83, 86-91, 94-100, 102
+
+   A. ADMINISTRATIVE
+
+      A.1 Distribution List
+            NWG/RFC #s: 95
+
+      A.2 Meeting Announcements
+            NWG/RFC #s: 87, 99
+
+      A.3 Meeting Minutes
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+      A.4 Guide to NWG/RFCs
+            NWG/RFC #s: 100
+
+      A.5 Policies
+            NWG/RFC #s: 30, 41, 53, 77, 82, 102
+
+   B. HOST/IMP PROTOCOL
+
+      Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822
+
+      B.1 General
+            NWG/RFC #s: 33, 47, 102
+
+      B.2 Marking/Padding
+            NWG/RFC #s: 102
+
+   C. HOST/HOST PROTOCOL
+
+      Official document: Document No. 1, S. Crocker, 3 August 1970
+
+      C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals
+            NWG/RFC #s: 33, 48, 54, 60, 62, 102
+
+      C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques)
+            NWG/RFC #s: 55, 74
+
+      C.3 Connection Establishment and Termination
+            NWG/RFC #s: 54
+
+      C.4 Flow Control
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 23]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+            NWG/RFC #s: 54 102
+
+      C.5 Error Control and Status Testing
+            NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
+
+      C.6 Interrupt
+            NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
+
+      C.7 Dynamic Reconnection
+            NWG/RFC #s: 47
+
+      C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links
+            NWG/RFC #s: 48
+
+   D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL
+
+      D.1 Logger Protocol
+            NWG/RFC #s: 56, 66, 80,98
+
+      D.2 Console Protocol
+            NWG/RFC #s: 66, 77, 82, 96, 97, 98
+
+      D.3 TELNET Protocol
+            NWG/RFC #s: 33, 96, 97
+
+      D.4 NIL, DEL, Form Machines
+            NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 51, 83
+
+      D.5 Record/Message Boundaries
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
+
+      D.6 Network Graphics
+            NWG/RFC #s: 86, 87, 94
+
+      D.7 File Transmission
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
+
+   E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK
+
+      E.1 General
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+      E.2 Clock
+            NWG/RFC #s: 32
+
+   F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE
+
+            NWG/RFC #s: 78, 89
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 24]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   G. SITE DOCUMENTATION
+
+      G.1 General
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+      G.2 NIC
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
+
+      G.3 UCSB
+            NWG/RFC #s: 74
+
+      G.4 CCN (UCLA)
+            NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90
+
+      G.5 Illinois
+            NWG/RFC #s: 76
+
+   H. ACCOUNTING
+
+            NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
+
+   I. OTHER
+
+      I.1 Hardware
+            NWG/RFC #s: 12
+
+      I.2 Request for References
+            NWG/RFC #s: 81
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 25]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+      List of NWG/RFC #'s 1-102 With Cross-Reference to Categorized Topics
+
+   NWG/RFC 1:    HOST Software
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                       7 April 1969
+
+                 Obsolete
+
+   NWG/RFC 2:    HOST Software
+                 B. Duvall (SRI)                         9 April 1969
+
+                 C.5, otherwise obsolete
+
+   NWG/RFC 3:    Documentation Conventions
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                       9 April 1969
+
+                 A.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 4:    Network Timetable
+                 E. Shapiro (SRI)                       24 March 1969
+
+                 Obsolete
+
+   *NWG/RFC 5:   DEL
+                 J. Rulifson (SRI)                        2 June 1969
+
+                 D.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 6:    Conversation with Bob Kahn
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      10 April 1969
+
+                 Obsolete
+
+   NWG/RFC 7:    HOST/IMP Interface
+                 G. Deloche (UCLA)                         5 May 1969
+
+                 Obsolete
+
+   NWG/RFC 8:    ARPA Network Functional Specifications
+                 G. Deloche (UCLA)                         5 May 1969
+
+                 Obsolete
+
+   *indicates inclusion in the subset of "current issues".
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 26]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 9:    HOST Software
+                 G. Deloche (UCLA)                         1 May 1969
+
+                 C.1 C.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 10:   Documentation Conventions
+                 S. Crocker                              29 July 1969
+
+                 A.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 11:   Implementation of the HOST-HOST Software Procedures in
+                 GORDO
+                 G. Deloche (UCLA)                      1 August 1969
+
+                 C.1 C.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 12:  IMP/HOST Interface Flow Diagram
+                 M. Wingfield (UCLA)                   26 August 1969
+
+                 I.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 13:   Referring to NWG/RFC 11
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                        20 August 1969
+
+                 D.5 D.7
+
+   NWG/RFC 14:   (never issued)
+
+   NWG/RFC 15:   Network Subsystem for Time-Sharing HOSTS
+                 C. S. Carr (UTAH)                  25 September 1969
+
+                 D.3
+
+   NWG/RFC 16:   MIT (address)
+                 S. Crocker                            27 August 1969
+
+                 A.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 17 &  Some Questions Re: HOST-IMP Protocol
+   17a
+                 J. E. Kreznar (SDC)                   27 August 1969
+
+                 B.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 18:   (use of links 1 and 2)
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                        September 1969
+
+                 A.5
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 27]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 19:   Two Protocol Suggestions to Reduce
+                       Congestion at Swap-bound Nodes
+                 J. E. Kreznar (SDC)                   7 October 1969
+
+                 B.1 C.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 20:   ASCII Format for Network Interchange
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                       10 October 1969
+
+                 D.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 21:   (report of Network meeting)
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                       17 October 1969
+
+                 A.3 B.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 22:   HOST-HOST Control Message Formats
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                       17 October 1969
+
+                 C.1 C.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 23:   Transmission of Multiple Control Messages
+                 G. Gregg (UCSB)                      16 October 1969
+
+                 C.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 24:   Documentation Conventions
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                   21 November 1969
+
+                 A.1 A.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 25:   No High Link Numbers
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                    30 October 1969
+
+                 A.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 26:   (never issued)
+
+   NWG/RFC 27:   Documentation Conventions
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                    6 December 1969
+
+                 A.1  A.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 28:   Time Standards
+                 B. English (ARC)                     13 January 1970
+
+                 E.1
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 28]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 29:   Note in Response to Bill English's
+                       Request for Comments
+                 R. Kahn (BBN)                        19 January 1970
+
+                 E.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 30:   Documentation Conventions
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                    4 February 1970
+
+                 A.1 A.5
+
+   *NWG/RFC 31:  Binary Message Forms in Computer Networks
+                 D. Borrow (BBN)
+                 W.R. Sutherland (LINC)                 February 1968
+
+                 D.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 32:  Connecting M.I.T. Computers to the ARPA
+                       Computer-to-Computer Communication Network
+                 D. Vedder (MAC)                      31 January 1969
+
+                 E.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 33:  New HOST-HOST Protocol
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                   12 February 1970
+
+                 B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7 D.1 D.3
+
+   NWG/RFC 34:   Some Brief Preliminary Notes on the ARC Clock
+                 B. English (ARC)                    26 February 1970
+
+                 E.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 35:   Network Meeting
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                       3 March 1970
+
+                 A.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 36:   Protocol Notes
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      16 March 1970
+
+                 B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 29]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 37:   Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      20 March 1970
+
+                 A.1 A.3 B.1 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.7 C.8 C.9
+
+   NWG/RFC 38:   Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC 36
+                 S.M. Wolfe (UCLA)                      20 March 1970
+
+                 B.1 C.1 C.7 C.8 D.7
+
+   NWG/RFC 39:   Comments on Protocol Re: NWG/RFC 36
+                 E. Harslem (RAND)
+                 J. Heafner (RAND)                      25 March 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.3 C.5 C.7 C.9
+
+   NWG/RFC 40:   More Comments on the Forthcoming Protocol
+                 E. Harslem (RAND)
+                 J. Heafner (RAND)                      27 March 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.5
+
+   *NWG/RFC 41:  IMP-IMP Teletype Communication
+                 J. Melvin (ARC)                        30 March 1970
+
+                 A.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 42:   Message Data Types
+                 E. I. Ancona (LINC)                    31 March 1970
+
+                 D.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 43:   Proposed Meeting
+                 A. G. Nemeth (LINC)                     8 April 1970
+
+                 A.2 D.6
+
+   NWG/RFC 44:   Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36
+                 A. Shohani (SDC)
+                 R. Long (SDC)
+                 A. Kandsberg (SDC)                     10 April 1970
+
+                 B.2 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.7 C.8 D.2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 30]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 45:   New Protocol is Coming
+                 J. Postel (UCLA)
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      14 April 1970
+
+                 A.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 46:   ARPA Network Protocol Notes
+                 E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC)                  17 April 1970
+
+                 B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 D.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 47:  BBN's Comments on NWG/RFC 33
+                 J. Postel (UCLA)
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      20 April 1970
+
+                 B.1 C.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 48:  A Possible Protocol Plateau
+                 J. Postel (UCLA)
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                      21 April 1970
+
+                 A.5 B.2 C.1 C.2 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 49:   Conversations with Steve Crocker
+                 E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC)                  25 April 1970
+
+                 B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 50:   Comments on the Meyer Proposal
+                 E. Harslem (RAND)
+                 J. Heafner (RAND)                      30 April 1970
+
+                 B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5
+
+   *NWG/RFC 51:  Proposal for a Network Interchange Language
+                 M. Elie (UCLA)                            4 May 1970
+
+                 D.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 52:   Updated Distribution List
+                 S. Crocker, J. Postel                    1 July 1970
+
+                 A.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 53:  An Official Protocol Mechanism
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                        9 June 1970
+
+                 A.5
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 31]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   *NWG/RFC 54:  An Official Protocol Proffering
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                       18 June 1970
+
+                 A.2 A.5 B.2 C.1 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6
+
+   *NWG/RFC 55:  A Prototypical Implementation of the NCP
+                 J. Newkirk, et al (HARV)                19 June 1970
+
+                 C.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 56:  Third Level Protocol
+                 E. Belove, et al (HARV)                 19 June 1970
+
+                 D.1 D.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 57:   Thoughts and Reflections on NWG/RFC 54
+                 M. Kraley, J. Newkirk (HARV)            19 June 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 58:   Logical Message Synchronization
+                 T. P. Skinner (MAC)                     26 June 1970
+
+                 D.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 59:   Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation
+                 E. W. Meyer Jr.                         27 June 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 60:  A Simplified NCP Protocol
+                 R. Kalin (LINC)                         13 July 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.3 C.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 61:   A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource
+                 Sharing Computer Network
+                 D. Walden (BBN)                         17 July 1970
+
+                 superseded by 62
+
+   *NWG/RFC 62:  A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource
+                 Sharing Computer Network Sharing Computer Network
+                 D. Walden (BBN)                        3 August 1970
+
+                 C.1 C.3
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 32]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 63:   Belated Network Meeting Report
+                 V. Cerf (UCLA)                          31 July 1970
+
+                 A.3 D.4 D.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 64:   Getting Rid of Marking
+                 M. Elie                                    (undated)
+
+                 B.2 H.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 65:   Comments on Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1
+                         (by S. Crocker - 8/3/70)
+                 D. Walden (BBN)                       29 August 1970
+
+                 B.2 C.1 C.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 66:  3rd level Ideas and Other Noise
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                     26 August 1970
+
+                 D.1 D.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 67:   Proposed Changes to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate Marking
+                 W. Crowther (BBN)                          (undated)
+
+                 B.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 68:   Comments on Memory Allocation Control Commands
+                       (CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and RFNM
+                 M. Elie (UCLA)                        31 August 1970
+
+   NWG/RFC 69:   Distribution List Change for MIT
+                 A. Bhushan (MAC)                   22 September 1970
+
+                 A.1
+
+   NWG/RFC 70:   A Note on Padding
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                    15 October 1970
+
+                 B.2 C.2
+
+   NWG/RFC 71:   Reallocation in Case of Input Error
+                 T. Schipper (UCLA)                 25 September 1970
+
+                 C.2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 33]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   NWG/RFC 72:   Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network Protocol
+                 R.D. Bressler (MAC)                28 September 1970
+
+                 A.5
+
+   NWG/RFC 73:   Response to NWG/RFC 67
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                  25 September 1970
+
+                 A.5
+
+   *NWG/RFC 74:  Specification for Network Use of the UCSB On-Line
+                 Systems
+                 J. White                             16 October 1970
+
+                 D.1 D.2 G.3
+
+   NWG/RFC 75:   Network Meeting
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                    14 October 1970
+
+                 A.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 76:  Connection-By-Name: User-Oriented Protocol
+                 J. Bouknight et al., (ILL)           28 October 1970
+
+                 D.3 G.5
+
+   *NWG/RFC 77:  Network Meeting Report
+                 J. Postel (UCLA)                    20 November 1970
+
+                 A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2 H
+
+   *NWG/RFC 78:  NCP Status Report:  UCSB/RAND
+                 E. Harslem et al., (RAND)                  (undated)
+
+                 F
+
+   NWG/RFC 79:   Logger Protocol Error
+                 E. W. Meyer, Jr. (MAC)              16 November 1970
+
+                 D.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 80:  Protocols and Data Formats
+                 E. Harslem et al., (RAND)            1 December 1970
+
+                 D.3 D.4 D.6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 34]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   *NWG/RFC 81:  Request for Reference Information
+                 J. Bauknight (Ill.)                  3 December 1970
+
+                 I.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 82:  Network Meeting Notes
+                 E. Meyer (MAC)                       9 December 1970
+
+                 A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2 H
+
+   *NWG/RFC 83:  Language - Machine for Data Reconfiguration
+                 R. Anderson et al. (RAND)           18 December 1970
+
+                 D.3 D.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 84:   List of NWG/RFC's 1- 80
+                 NIC                                 23 December 1970
+
+                 A.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 85:   Network Working Group Meeting
+                 S. Crocker (ULA)                    28 December 1970
+
+                 A.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 86:  Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a Data
+                 Stream to Control Graphics Display
+                 S. Crocker (UCLA)                     5 January 1971
+
+                 D.6
+
+   *NWG/RFC 87:  Topics for Discussion at the Next Network Working
+                 Group Meeting
+                 A. Vezza (MAC)                       12 January 1971
+
+                 A.2 D.6
+
+   *NWG/RFC 88:  NETRJS - A Third Level Protocol for Remote Job Entry
+                 R. Braden, S. M. Wolfe (UCLA)        13 January 1971
+
+                 D1.  D.2 G.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 89:  Some Historic Moments in Networking
+                 B. Metcalfe (MAC, Harvard)           19 January 1971
+
+                 C.2 D.6 F
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 35]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   *NWG/RFC 90:  CCN as a Network Service Center
+                 R. T. Braden (UCLA)                  25 January 1971
+
+                 G.4
+
+   *NWG/RFC 91:  A Proposed User-User Protocol
+                 G. Mealy (Harvard)                  27 December 1970
+
+                 D.1 D.2 D.3 D.5 D.7
+
+   NWG/RFC 92:   (Not Received)
+
+   NWG/RFC 93:   Initial Connection Protocol
+                 A. McKenzie (BBN)                    27 January 1971
+
+                 D.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 94:  Some Thoughts on Network Graphics
+                 E. Harslem, J. Heafner (RAND)        3 February 1971
+
+                 D.6
+
+   *NWG/RFC 95:  Distribution of NWG/RFC's Through the NIC
+                 S. Crocker                           4 February 1971
+
+                 A.1
+
+   *NWG/RFC 96:  An Interactive Network Experiment to Study Modes of
+                 Accessing the Network Information Center
+                 D. Watson (SRI-ARC)                 12 February 1971
+
+                 D.2 D.3 D.4 G.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 97:  A First Cut at a Proposed TELNET Protocol
+                 J. Melvin, D. Watson (SRI-ARC)      15 February 1971
+
+                 D.1 D.2 D.3 G.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 98:  Logger Protocol Proposal
+                 E. Meyer, T. Skinner (MAC)          11 February 1971
+
+                 D.1 D.2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 36]
+
+RFC 100           Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's   26 February 1971
+
+
+   *NWG/RFC 99:  Network Meeting
+                 P. Karp                             22 February 1971
+
+                 A.2
+
+   *NWG/RFC 100: Categorization and Guide to NG/RFCs
+                 P. Karp (MITRE)                     20 February 1971
+
+                 A.4
+
+   NWG/RFC 101:  (Not Received)
+
+   *NWG/RFC 102: Output of Host/Host Protocol Glitch
+                       Cleaning Committee
+                 S. Crocker                      22, 23 February 1971
+
+                 A.5 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.6
+
+
+         [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+         [ into the online RFC archives by Gottfried Janik 2/98 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Karp                                                           [Page 37]
+