diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc592.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc592.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc592.txt | 283 |
1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc592.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc592.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..45a63c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc592.txt @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group R. Watson +Request for Comments: 592 SRI +NIC 20391 November 1973 + + + Some Thoughts on System Design to Facilitate Resource Sharing + +INTRODUCTION + + There is a growing interest in moving toward more resource sharing on + the ARPANET. Some resource sharing has been taking place by having + systems open TELNET connections and generating user command strings. + I think that this is fine for experimental use, but is not the way we + want to operate in real usage. What I believe network system + builders should do is to develop mechanisms appropriately designed + for computer-computer communication. + +SYSTEM INTERCONNECTION, AN APPROACH + + The goal I would like to see us move toward is to view all systems on + the network as offering certain service modules, any subset of which + can be combined in building other systems. Each service module would + have a well advertised set of primitive service capabilities that it + could provide. It would have documented commands at the level of + present Telnet or FTP commands for gaining access to its services. + It would also have a defined network connection procedure. Then any + system builder wanting to avail himself of these services could do so + and integrate them into his own user interface environment. + + At the present time when a system is built, the system builders tend + to see it as a stand alone thing or at most something to be used + within a specific environment. What I would like to see fostered is + the idea that any system built is not only a stand alone environment + but also a network service or set of services. The builders would + define not only a user interface for their environment, but also a + set of primitives and primitive commands that can be accessed by + other systems around the network to get that service performed. + + For example, we are redesigning the NLS Journal in light of our + experience and that of Network Mail as a set of protocols and + services. If one looks at the processes of the NLS Journal one + can see a number of separate services that could be provided by + different network sites or combined in varying combinations by a + single site. These being: + + Distribution (identification of addressees and maintainance of + the required data bases being a related service), recording + (numbering and storing of items), cataloging, and retrieval. + + + +Watson [Page 1] + +RFC 592 System Design for Resource Sharing November 1973 + + + At the moment these services are fairly tightly interconnected in the + NLS Journal and what we want to do is to decouple them and define + their intercommunication by protocols that would allow them to be + distributed in different hosts on the network. Mechanisms would also + be defined for the several hosts performing similar services around + the network to work together cooperatively. + + As a further example, there are also other services that NLS could + probably provide such as structured file creation and manipulation; + information portrayal online or in hardcopy; database querying etc. + However, at the moment the system is not explicitly structured from + the point of view that outside systems could come into it anywhere + but at the human user interface even though internally it is quite + modular. It would be straightforward for us to identify those NLS + services that other system builders might possibly be interested in + incorporating into their systems with their own user interface and + then to do the restructuring and primitive command definition + necessary. Other groups building systems on the network could + perform a similar examination. + + CCA, on the other hand as I understand it, has taken this point of + view from the beginning, namely building the Datacomputer on the + assumption that it is primarily a network resource and is to be used + by other systems. BBN is also moving in this direction in the design + of Distributed TENEX. + + There is nothing new in the above ideas; they come from generalizing + past successes we have all had with network protocol development and + with good software engineering practices. It will, however, take a + change in the thinking of system designers, some concrete examples, + and ongoing dialog to make such a design philosophy the normal + network way of life. + +SOME FUNCTIONS READY FOR INTERCONNECTION + + The area of dialog support may be the first area ripe to create such + a synthesis with the several systems in or coming into existence, + each solves part of the problem (with some overlap). The dialog + support systems on the network known to me are: + + The NLS Journal (supports recorded and cataloged dialog and linked + networks of documents and messages). + + NLS Screen linking and splitting (supports close collaboration of + two or more people working together in real time in NLS) + + + + + + +Watson [Page 2] + +RFC 592 System Design for Resource Sharing November 1973 + + + The network wide linking of terminals through BBN's RSEXEC. + + Tenex Sndmsg and Readmail and other mail systems support + nonrecorded dialog and further manipulation of received messages. + (Some interconnection between NLS and these facilities has been + established). + + The communication system under design at USC-ISI to support a + range of message services. + + The online conferencing system being built by Jim Calvin of Case, + John Iseli of Mitre and others supports online conferencing of + several members and has facilities to utilize various Tenex + subsystems such as TECO and NLS to support conferees. + + The Hack system of CASE offers a bulletin board service. + + The Forum system of IFF supports online and distributed in time + conferencing and other features. + + Other areas possibly ripe for synthesis are 1) file and data + management, and information retrieval services; 2) editing and + hardcopy portrayal with systems like Tenex RUNOFF, SU-AI's PUB and + SRI-ARC's Output Processor. + + If the salient service features, concepts, goals of each could be + defined clearly and appropriate service primitives, as per other + ARPANET protocols, could be defined for each, anyone wishing to + incorporate that service with a user interface appropriate to his + environment or philosophy could do so. + +SYSTEM INTERCONNECTION ISSUES RELATED TO THE ABOVE PROPOSAL + + There are many detailed issues related to system interconnection as + proposed above. A number seem worth mentioning here. + + + 1) Types of Network Connections + + The number and type of network connections to be opened between + classes of cooperating processes can probably be systematized. + One of the important elements of the FTP and Graphics protocol + efforts was to define the number and type of connections necessary + for these classes of transaction. Similar classification and + connection definition will be required for other types of + processes. + + + + + +Watson [Page 3] + +RFC 592 System Design for Resource Sharing November 1973 + + + 2) Data Structure Translation + + The whole area of translation and transfer of data structures more + complicated than sequential files needs vigorous thought and + protocol development. + + Systems built around sequential files are presently dominant on + the ARPANET and provide a base for simple useful economical + tools. I, however, do not believe that the longer run tool + sharing can depend on communication between sequential files, + but requires structured files. Experience with NLS tree + structured files shows that even this level of structuring may + be inadequate for many uses and more sophistication may be + required. A similar trend exists in work with computer + graphics and generalized data management systems. Developing + protocols for handling structured data bases or agreement on + common structuring characteristics seems an important need. + + 3) Responsiveness + + Factors influencing responsiveness to users in an environment of + heavy geographically separated resource sharing need determination + and discussion. + + 4) Documentation of System Interfaces + + It is probably reasonably straightforward to define service + interfaces, but they will be useless unless their activating + command languages and other conventions are well documented and + this documentation is kept up to date. + + 5) Accounting + + A very difficult problem once you interconnect systems at lower + levels is to design an appropriate network accounting and banking + system that will not cause undue delays in accessing distributed + resources. + + 6) Error Handling + + We need to develop mechanisms for passing error signals around + when system environments are crossing machine boundaries. + + 7) Standard Parameter Formats + + Data types such as strings, integers, floating point numbers, + arrays, pointers, etc. need to have standard representations + defined for passing parameters back and forth between machines. + + + +Watson [Page 4] + +RFC 592 System Design for Resource Sharing November 1973 + + + 8) HELP at the Procedure Call Level + + A HELP mechanism needs to be defined in the protocols to provide + information that each designer can translate to his user + interface. Standards for requesting HELP information and + structuring HELP data bases needs agreement. + +ACKNOWLEDGEMENT + + I wish to acknowledge the useful suggestions of Charles Irby and Jim + White in the thoughts above. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Watson [Page 5] + |