doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1775.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1775.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..abd3518
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1775.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         D. Crocker
+Request for Comments: 1775                        Brandenburg Consulting
+Category: Informational                                       March 1995
+
+
+                        To Be "On" the Internet
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
+   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
+   this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   The Internet permits different levels of access for consumers and
+   providers of service.  The nature of those differences is quite
+   important in the capabilities They afford.  Hence, it is appropriate
+   to provide terminology that distinguishes among the range, so that
+   the Internet community can gain some clarity when distinguishing
+   whether a user (or an organization) is "on" the Internet.  This
+   document suggests four terms, for distinguishing the major classes of
+   access.
+
+1.   INTRODUCTION
+
+   The Internet is many things to many people.  It began as a technology
+   and has grown into a global service.  With the growth has come
+   increased complexity in details of the technology and service,
+   resulting in confusion when trying to determine whether a given user
+   is "on" the Internet.  Who is on the Internet?  What capabilities do
+   they have?  This note is an attempt to aid Internet consumers and
+   providers in determining the basic types of end-user access that
+   distinguish critical differences in Internet attachment.
+
+   The list was developed primarily for the perspective of users, rather
+   than for the technical community. The definitions in this list take
+   the perspective that users are primarily interested in application
+   services.   A curious implication is that some of the definitions do
+   not rely on the direct use of the underlying Internet connectivity
+   protocols, TCP/IP.  For many technical discussions, therefore, these
+   terms will not be appropriate.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1775                To Be "On" the Internet               March 1995
+
+
+2.   LABELS FOR INTERNET ACCESS
+
+   The following definitions move from "most" to "least" Internet
+   access, from the perspective of the user (consumer). The first term
+   is primarily applicable to Internet service providers.  The remaining
+   terms are primarily applicable to consumers of Internet service.
+
+   FULL ACCESS
+
+      This is a permanent (full-time) Internet attachment running
+      TCP/IP, primarily appropriate for allowing the Internet community
+      to access application servers, operated by Internet service
+      providers.  Machines with Full access are directly visible to
+      others attached to the Internet, such as through the Internet
+      Protocol's ICMP Echo (ping) facility.  The core of the Internet
+      comprises those machines with Full access.
+
+   CLIENT ACCESS
+
+      The user runs applications that employ Internet application
+      protocols directly on their own computer platform, but might not
+      be running underlying Internet protocols  (TCP/IP), might not have
+      full-time access, such as through dial-up, or might have
+      constrained access, such as through a firewall.  When active,
+      Client users might be visible to the general Internet, but such
+      visibility cannot be predicted.  For example, this means that most
+      Client access users will not be detected during an empirical
+      probing of systems "on" the Internet at any given moment, such as
+      through the ICMP Echo facility.
+
+   MEDIATED ACCESS
+
+      The user runs no Internet applications on their own platform.  An
+      Internet service provider runs applications that use Internet
+      protocols on the provider's platform, for the user.  User has
+      simplified access to the provider, such as dial-up terminal
+      connectivity.  For Mediated access, the user is on the Internet,
+      but their computer platform is not.  Instead, it is the computer
+      of the mediating service (provider) which is on the Internet.
+
+   MESSAGING ACCESS
+
+      The user has no Internet access, except through electronic mail
+      and through netnews, such as Usenet or a bulletin board service.
+      Since messaging services can be used as a high-latency -- i.e.,
+      slow -- transport service, the use of this level of access for
+      mail-enabled services can be quite powerful, though not
+      interactive.
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1775                To Be "On" the Internet               March 1995
+
+
+3.   SAMPLE USAGE
+
+   The test of a nomenclature is, of course, its application to real-
+   life situations.  Two simple cases involve home users.  If a user
+   accesses the Internet by running a terminal program on their PC and
+   then dials up a public service which provides the Internet
+   applications, then that user has Mediated Internet access.  The
+   public service has Client or Full access, but the user does not.  On
+   the other hand, users who access via SLIP or PPP are running Internet
+   applications on their own PCs and they have Client Internet access.
+
+   Many corporations now have a full-time link to the Internet.  The
+   link is based on TCP/IP and usually has a number of Internet servers
+   running, for email exchange and for making public corporate data
+   available to the rest of the world, such as through the World Wide
+   Web and Gopher.  Clearly, the corporation is "on" the Internet, with
+   Full Internet access.
+
+   What about a user in that corporation?  Many corporations today
+   separate their internal internet from the public Internet via a
+   firewall.  If a user from the internal internet has a desktop
+   computer and reaches out to the Internet, through the firewall, by
+   running any Internet applications, such as a Web browser, then that
+   user has Client Internet access.
+
+   Some corporations will not allow this, instead requiring all software
+   which touches the public Internet to be run on specially-administered
+   machines which are part of the corporation's firewall suite of
+   services.  Hence, users must make a terminal connection to the
+   special machines, from there running the Internet applications.  Such
+   users have Mediated Internet access, the same as home users who dial
+   up a public service.
+
+4.   SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
+
+   This specification does NOT, itself, provide or define any security-
+   related mechanisms.  However it does describe scenarios with
+   different security implications for users and providers.  Readers of
+   this discussion are cautioned to consider those implications when
+   choosing a service.
+
+5.   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
+
+   Development of these definitions was spurred by many public and
+   private discussions in which confusion over Internet access reigned.
+   Convergence on an initial set of three terms was the result of
+   discussion on the Big-Internet mailing list, particularly from
+   comments made by Alan Barret, Howard Berkowitz, Noel Chiappa, Steve
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1775                To Be "On" the Internet               March 1995
+
+
+   Goldstein, Iain Hanson, Gary Malkin, Bob McKisson, Tim O'Reilly, Dave
+   Piscitello and Bill Simpson.  Eventually, the need for a fourth
+   category became evident and was discussed further with the
+   participants on the list.  This does not mean that any of them
+   necessarily endorses the terms and definitions provided, merely that
+   their notes assisted my thinking on the topic.  After the initial
+   round of public discussion, Smoot Carl-Mitchell and John Quarterman
+   of Texas Internet Consulting developed terminology for similar
+   categories and served to prompt modification of this set, described,
+   here, to distinguish between provider and consumer forms of access
+   and emphasize the role of Full access in defining the Internet core.
+
+6.   Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+7.   Author's Address
+
+   David H. Crocker
+   Brandenburg Consulting
+   675 Spruce Dr.
+   Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
+
+   Phone:    +1 408 246 8253
+   Fax:      +1 408 249 6205
+   EMail:    dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 4]
+