doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1062 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc899.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc899.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..251689e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc899.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1062 @@
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          J. Postel
+Request for Comments: 899                                     A. Westine
+                                                                     ISI
+                                                                May 1984
+
+
+                     Requests For Comments Summary
+                             Notes: 800-899
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 800
+   through RFC 899.  This is a status report on these RFCs.
+
+RFC     Author       Date        Title
+---     ------       ----        -----
+
+899     Postel       Apr 84      Requests For Comments Summary
+
+   This memo.
+
+898     Hinden       Apr 84      Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting
+                                 Notes
+
+   This memo is a report on the Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting
+   that was held at ISI on 28 and 29 February 1984.  Robert Hinden of
+   BBNCC chaired, and Jon Postel of ISI hosted the meeting.
+   Approximately 35 gateway designers and implementors attended.  These
+   notes are based on the recollections of Jon Postel and Mike Muuss.
+   Under each topic area are Jon Postel's brief notes, and additional
+   details from Mike Muuss.  This memo is a report on a meeting.  No
+   conclusions, decisions, or policy statements are documented in this
+   note.
+
+897     Postel       Feb 84      Domain Name System Implementation
+                                 Schedule
+
+   This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Domain
+   Style Naming System in the Internet.  This memo is a partial update
+   of RFC 881.  The intent of this memo is to detail the schedule for
+   the implementation for the Domain Style Naming System.  The names of
+   hosts will be changed to domain style names.  Hosts will begin to use
+   domain style names on 14-Mar-84, and the use of old style names will
+   be completely phased out before 2-May-84.  This applies to both the
+   ARPA research hosts and the DDN operational hosts.  This is an
+   official policy statement of the ICCB and the DARPA.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 1]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+896     Nagle        Jan 84      Congestion Control in IP/TCP
+                                 Internetworks
+
+   This memo discusses some aspects of congestion control in IP/TCP
+   Internetworks.  It is intended to stimulate thought and further
+   discussion of this topic.  While some specific suggestions are made
+   for improved congestion control implementation, this memo does not
+   specify any standards.
+
+895     Postel       Apr 84      A Standard for the Transmission of
+                                 IP Datagrams over Experimental Ethernet
+                                 Networks
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet
+   Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Experimental Ethernet.  This RFC
+   specifies a standard protocol for the ARPA Internet community.
+
+894     Hornig       Apr 84      A Standard for the Transmission of
+                                 IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet
+   Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Ethernet.  This RFC specifies a
+   standard protocol for the ARPA-Internet community.
+
+893     Leffler      Apr 84      Trailer Encapsulations
+
+   This RFC discusses the motivation for use of "trailer encapsulations"
+   on local-area networks and describes the implementation of such an
+   encapsulation on various media.  This document is for information
+   only.  This is NOT an official protocol for the ARPA Internet
+   community.
+
+892     ISO          Dec 83      ISO Transport Protocol Specification
+
+   This is a draft version of the transport protocol being standardized
+   by the ISO.  This version also appeared in the ACM SIGCOMM Computer
+   Communication Review (V.12, N.3-4) July-October 1982.  This version
+   is now out of date.
+
+891     Mills        Dec 83      DCN Local-Network Protocols
+
+   This RFC provides a description of the DCN protocols for maintaining
+   connectivity, routing, and clock information in a local network.
+   These procedures may be of interest to the designers and implementers
+   of other local networks.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 2]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+890     Postel       Feb 84      Exterior Gateway Protocol
+                                 Implementation Schedule
+
+   This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Exterior
+   Gateway Protocol in the Internet.  This is an official policy
+   statement of ICCB and DARPA.  After 1-Aug-84 there shall be no dumb
+   gateways in the Internet. Every gateway must be a member of some
+   autonomous system.  Some gateway of each autonomous system must
+   exchange routing information with some gateway of the core autonomous
+   system using the Exterior Gateway Protocol.
+
+889     Mills        Dec 83      Internet Delay Experiments
+
+   This memo reports on some measurements of round-trip times in the
+   Internet and suggests some possible improvements to the TCP
+   retransmission timeout calculation.  This memo is both a status
+   report on the Internet and advice to TCP implementers.
+
+888     Seamonson    Jan 84      "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol
+
+   This RFC describes the Exterior Gateway Protocol used to connect Stub
+   Gateways to an Autonomous System of core Gateways.  This document
+   specifies the working protocol, and defines an ARPA official
+   protocol.  All implementers of Gateways should carefully review this
+   document.
+
+887     Accetta      Dec 83      Resource Location Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.
+   It describes a resource location protocol for use in the ARPA
+   Internet.  It is most useful on networks employing technologies which
+   support some method of broadcast addressing, however it may also be
+   used on other types of networks.  For maximum benefit, all hosts
+   which provide significant resources or services to other hosts on the
+   Internet should implement this protocol.  Hosts failing to implement
+   the Resource Location Protocol risk being ignored by other hosts
+   which are attempting to locate resources on the Internet.
+
+886     Rose         Dec 83      Proposed Standard for Message Header
+                                 Munging
+
+   This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.
+   It describes the rules to be used when transforming mail from the
+   conventions of one message system to those of another message system.
+   In particular, the treatment of header fields, and recipient
+   addresses is specified.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 3]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+885     Postel       Dec 83      Telnet End of Record Option
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  It
+   specifies a method for marking the end of records in data transmitted
+   on Telnet connections.
+
+884     Solomon      Dec 83      Telnet Terminal Type Option
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  It
+   specifies a method for exchanging terminal type information in the
+   Telnet protocol.
+
+883     Mockapetris  Nov 83      Domain Names - Implementation and
+                                 Specification
+
+   This RFC discusses the implementation of domain name servers and
+   resolvers, specifies the format of transactions, and discusses the
+   use of domain names in the context of existing mail systems and other
+   network software.
+
+882     Mockapetris  Nov 83      Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities
+
+   This RFC introduces domain style names, their use for ARPA Internet
+   mail and host address support, and the protocol and servers used to
+   implement domain name facilities.
+
+881     Postel       Nov 83      The Domain Names Plan and Schedule
+
+   This RFC outlines a plan and schedule for the implementation of
+   domain style names throughout the DDN/ARPA Internet community.  The
+   introduction of domain style names will impact all hosts on the
+   DDN/ARPA Internet.
+
+880     Reynolds     Oct 83      Official Protocols
+
+   This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
+   used in the ARPA Internet.  Annotations identify any revisions or
+   changes planned.  Obsoletes RFC 840.
+
+879     Postel       Nov 83      The TCP Maximum Segment Size and
+                                 Related Topics
+
+   This RFC discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and related
+   topics.  The purposes is to clarify some aspects of TCP and its
+   interaction with IP.  This memo is a clarification to the TCP
+   specification, and contains information that may be considered as
+   "advice to implementers".
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 4]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+878     Malis        Dec 83      The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a
+   successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol.  The 1822L
+   procedure allows ARPANET hosts to use logical identifiers as well as
+   1822 physical interface identifiers to address each other.
+
+877     Korb         Sep 83      A Standard for the Transmission of IP
+                                 Datagrams Over Public Data Networks
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard adopted by CSNET, the VAN gateway, and
+   other organizations for the transmission of IP datagrams over the
+   X.25-based public data networks.
+
+876     Smallberg    Sep 83      Survey of SMTP Implementations
+
+   This RFC is a survey of implementation status.  It does not specify
+   an official protocol, but rather notes the status of implementation
+   of aspects of a protocol.  It is expected that the status of the
+   hosts reported on will change.  This information must be treated as a
+   snapshot of the state of these implemetations.
+
+875     Padlipsky    Sep 82      Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalumps
+
+   This RFC is a discussion about the role of gateways in an
+   internetwork, especially the problems of translating or mapping
+   protocols between different protocol suites.  The discussion notes
+   possible functionality mis-matches, undesirable routing "singularity
+   points", flow control issues, and high cost of translating gateways.
+   Originally published as M82-51 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford,
+   Massachusetts.
+
+874     Padlipsky    Sep 82      A Critique of X.25
+
+   This RFC is an analysis of X.25 pointing out some problems in the
+   conceptual model, particularly the conflict between the interface
+   aspects and the end-to-end aspects.  The memo also touches on
+   security, and implementation issues.  Originally published as M82-50
+   by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
+
+873     Padlipsky    Sep 82      The Illusion of Vendor Support
+
+   This memo takes issue with the claim that international standards in
+   computer protocols presently provide a basis for low cost vendor
+   supported protocol implementations.  Originally published as M82-49
+   by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 5]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+872     Padlipsky    Sep 82      TCP-ON-A-LAN
+
+   This memo attacks the notion that TCP cannot be appropriate for use
+   on a Local Area Network.  Originally published as M82-48 by the MITRE
+   Corporation, Bedford Massachusetts.
+
+871     Padlipsky    Sep 82      A Perspective on the Arpanet Reference
+                                 Model
+
+   This RFC is primarily intended as a perspective on the ARM and points
+   out some of the differences between the ARM and the ISORM  which were
+   expressed by members in NWG general meetings, NWG protocol design
+   committee meetings, the ARPA Internet Working Group, and private
+   conversations over the intervening years.  Originally published as
+   M82-47 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
+
+870     Reynolds     Oct 83      Assigned Numbers
+
+   This RFC documents the list of numbers assigned for networks,
+   protocols, etc.  Obsoletes RFCs 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755,
+   750, 739, 604.
+
+869     Hinden       Dec 83      A Host Monitoring Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies the Host Monitoring Protocol used to collect
+   information from various types of hosts in the Internet.  Designers
+   of Internet communications software are encouraged to consider this
+   protocol as a means of monitoring the behavior of their creations.
+
+868     Postel       May 83      Time Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Time Protocol are
+   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  This protocol
+   provides a site-independent, machine readable date and time.  The
+   Time service sends back to the originating source the time in seconds
+   since midnight on January first 1900.
+
+867     Postel       May 83      Daytime Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Daytime Protocol are
+   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The Daytime service
+   simply sends the current date and time as a character string without
+   regard to the input.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 6]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+866     Postel       May 83      Active Users
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement an Active Users
+   Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The
+   Active Users service simply sends a list of the currently active
+   users on the host without regard to the input.
+
+865     Postel       May 83      Quote of the Day Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Quote of the Day
+   Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard.   The
+   Quote of the Day service simply sends a short message without regard
+   to the input.
+
+864     Postel       May 83      Character Generator Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Character Generator
+   Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The
+   Character Generator service simply sends data without regard to the
+   input.
+
+863     Postel       May 83      Discard Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Discard Protocol are
+   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The Discard service
+   simply throws away any data it receives.
+
+862     Postel       May 83      Echo Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Echo Protocol are
+   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The Echo service
+   simply sends back to the originating source any data it receives.
+
+861     Postel       May 83      Telnet Extended Options - List Option
+
+   This Telnet Option provides a mechanism for extending the set of
+   possible options.  This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
+   Internet community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
+   and implement this standard.  Obsoletes NIC 16239.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 7]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+860     Postel       May 83      Telnet Timing Mark Option
+
+   This Telnet Option provides a way to check the roundtrip path between
+   two Telnet modules.  This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
+   Internet community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
+   and implement this standard.  Obsoletes NIC 16238.
+
+859     Postel       May 83      Telnet Status Option
+
+   This Telnet Option provides a way to determine the other Telnet
+   module's view of the status of options.  This RFC specifies a
+   standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet
+   are expected to adopt and implement this standard.  Obsoletes RFC 651
+   (NIC 31154).
+
+858     Postel       May 83      Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option
+
+   This Telnet Option disables the exchange of go-ahead signals between
+   the Telnet modules.  This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
+   Internet community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
+   and implement this standard.  Obsoletes NIC 15392.
+
+857     Postel       May 83      Telnet Echo Option
+
+   This Telnet Option enables remote echoing by the other Telnet module.
+   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts
+   on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this
+   standard.  Obsoletes NIC 15390.
+
+856     Postel       May 83      Telnet Binary Transmission
+
+   This Telnet Option enables a binary data mode between the Telnet
+   modules.  This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet
+   community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and
+   implement this standard.  Obsoletes NIC 15389.
+
+855     Postel       May 83      Telnet Option Specifications
+
+   This memo specifies the general form for Telnet options and the
+   directions for their specification.  This RFC specifies a standard
+   for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are
+   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  Obsoletes RFC 651,
+   NIC 18640.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 8]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+854     Postel       May 83      Telnet Protocol Specifications
+
+   This is the specification of the Telnet protocol used for remote
+   terminal access in the ARPA Internet.  The purpose of the TELNET
+   Protocol is to provide a fairly general, bi-directional, eight-bit
+   byte oriented communications facility.  Its primary goal is to allow
+   a standard method of interfacing terminal devices and
+   terminal-oriented processes to each other.  It is envisioned that the
+   protocol may also be used for terminal-terminal communication
+   ("linking") and process-process communication (distributed
+   computation).   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet
+   community.  Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and
+   implement this standard.  Obsoletes NIC 18639.
+
+853     Not issued yet.
+
+852     Malis        Apr 83      The ARPANET Short Blocking Feature
+
+   This RFC specifies the ARPANET Short Blocking Feature, which will
+   allow ARPANET  hosts to optionally shorten the IMP's host blocking
+   timer.  This Feature is a replacement of the ARPANET non-blocking
+   host interface, which was never implemented, and will be available to
+   hosts using either the 1822 or 1822L Host Access Protocol.  This RFC
+   is also being presented as a solicitation of comments on the Short
+   Blocking Feature, especially from host network software implementers
+   and maintainers.
+
+851     Malis        Apr 83      The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
+
+   This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a
+   successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol.  1822L allows
+   ARPANET hosts to use logical names as well as 1822's physical port
+   locations to address each other.  This RFC is also being presented as
+   a solicitation of comments on 1822L, especially from host network
+   software implementers and maintainers.  Obsoletes RFC 802.
+
+850     Horton       Jun 83      Standard for Interchange of USENET
+                                 Messages
+
+   This memo is distributed as an RFC only to make this information
+   easily accessible to researchers in the ARPA community.  It does not
+   specify an Internet standard.  This RFC defines the standard format
+   for interchange of Network News articles among USENET sites.  It
+   describes the format for articles themselves, and gives partial
+   standards for transmission of news.  The news transmission is not
+   entirely standardized in order to give a good deal of flexibility to
+   the individual hosts to choose transmission hardware and software,
+   whether to batch news and so on.
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                                [page 9]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+849     Crispin      May 83      Suggestions for Improved Host Table
+                                 Distribution
+
+   This RFC actually is a request for comments.  The issue dealt with is
+   that of a naming registry update procedure, both as exists currently
+   and what could exist in the future.  None of the proposed solutions
+   are intended as standards at this time; rather it is hoped that a
+   general consensus will emerge as the appropriate solution, leaving
+   eventually to the adoption of standards.
+
+848     Smallberg    Mar 83      Who provides the "Little" TCP Services?
+
+   This RFC lists those hosts which provide any of these "little" TCP
+   services:  The list of hosts were taken from the NIC hostname table
+   of 24-Feb-83.  The tests were run on February 23 and 24, and March 3
+   and 5 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
+
+847     Westine      Feb 83      Summary of Smallberg Surveys
+
+   This is a summary of the surveys of Telnet, FTP and Mail (SMTP)
+   servers conducted by David Smallberg in December 1982, January and
+   February 1983 as reported in RFC 832-843, 845-846.  This memo
+   extracts the number of hosts that accepted the connection to their
+   server for each of Telnet, FTP, and SMTP, and compares it to the
+   total host in the Internet (not counting TACs or ECHOS).
+
+846     Smallberg    Feb 83      Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 22 February
+                                 1983
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 18-Feb-83.  The tests were run on 22-Feb-83
+   from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
+
+845     Smallberg    Feb 83      Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 15 February
+                                 1983
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83.  The tests were run on 15-Feb-83
+   from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 10]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+844     Clements    Feb 83      Who Talks ICMP, too?  Survey of 18
+                                 February 1983
+
+   This survey determines how many hosts are able to respond to TELENET
+   connections from a user at a class C site.  This requires, in
+   addition to IP and TCP, participation in gateway routing via ICMP and
+   handling of Class C addresses.  The list of hosts was taken from RFC
+   843, extracting only those hosts which are listed there as accepting
+   TELNET connection.  The tests were run on 18-Feb-83.
+
+843     Smallberg    Feb 83      Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 8 February
+                                 1983
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83.  The tests were run on 8-Feb-83
+   and on 9-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
+
+842     Smallberg    Feb 83      Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 1 February
+                                 1983
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 28-Jan-83.  The tests were run on 1-Feb-83
+   and on 2-Feb-83 ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
+
+841     FIPS PUB 98  Jan 83      Specification for Message Format for
+                                 Computer Based Message Systems
+
+   This RFC is FIPS 98.  The purpose of distributing this document as an
+   RFC is to make it easily accessible to the ARPA research community.
+   This RFC does not specify a standard for the ARPA Internet.
+   Obsoletes RFC 806.
+
+840     Postel       Apr 83      Official Protocols
+
+   This RFC has been revised, see RFC 880.
+
+839     Smallberg    Jan 83      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82.  The tests were run on
+   25-Jan-83.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 11]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+838     Smallberg    Jan 83      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82.  The tests were run on
+   18-Jan-83.
+
+837     Smallberg    Jan 83      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82.  The tests were run on
+   11-Jan-83.
+
+836     Smallberg    Jan 83      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 20-Dec-82.  The tests were run on 4-Jan-83
+   through 5-Jan-83.
+
+835     Smallberg    Dec 82      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82.  The tests were run on 28-Dec-82
+   through 5-Jan-83.
+
+834     Smallberg    Dec 82      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82.  The tests were run on 22-Dec-82.
+
+833     Smallberg    Dec 82      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82.  The tests were run on 14-Dec-82.
+
+832     Smallberg    Dec 82      Who Talks TCP?
+
+   This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
+   of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP.  The list of hosts was taken from
+   the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82.  The tests were run on 7-Dec-82.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 12]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+831     Braden       Dec 82      Backup Access to the European Side of
+                                 SATNET
+
+   The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on a particular
+   Internet problem:  a backup path for software maintenance of the
+   European sector of the Internet, for use when SATNET is partitioned.
+   We propose a mechanism, based upon the Source Routing option of IP,
+   to reach European Internet sites via the VAN Gateway and UCL.  This
+   proposal is not intended as a standard at this time.
+
+830     Zaw-Sing Su  Oct 82      A Distributed System for Internet Name
+                                 Service
+
+   This RFC proposes a distributed name service for DARPA Internet.  Its
+   purpose is to focus discussion on the subject.  It is hoped that a
+   general consensus will emerge leading eventually to the adoption of
+   standards.
+
+829     Cerf         Oct 82      Packet Satellite Technology Reference
+                                 Sources
+
+   This RFC describes briefly the packet satellite technology developed
+   by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and several other
+   participating organizations in the U.K. and Norway and provides a
+   bibliography of relevant papers for researchers interested in
+   experimental and operational experience with this dynamic
+   satellite-sharing technique.
+
+828     Owen         Aug 82      Data Communications:  IFIP's
+                                 International "Network" of Experts
+
+   This RFC is distributed to inform the ARPA Internet community of the
+   activities of the IFIP technical committee on Data Communications,
+   and to encourage participation in those activities.
+
+827     Rosen        Oct 82      Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)
+
+   This RFC is proposed to establish a standard for Gateway to Gateway
+   procedures that allow the Gateways to be mutually suspicious.  This
+   document is a DRAFT for that standard.  Your comments are strongly
+   encouraged.
+
+826     Plummer      Nov 82      An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol
+
+   The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting Protocol
+   Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network Addresses (e.g.,
+   Ethernet addresses).  This is an issue of general concern in the ARPA
+   Internet Community at this time.  The method proposed here is
+   presented for your consideration and comment.  This is not the
+   specification of an Internet Standard.
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 13]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+825     Postel       Nov 82      Request for Comments on Requests for
+                                 Comments
+
+   This RFC is intended to clarify the status of RFCs and to provide
+   some guidance for the authors of RFCs in the future.  It is in a
+   sense a specification for RFCs.
+
+824     MacGregor    Aug 82      The Cronus Virtual Local Network
+
+   The purpose of this note is to describe the CRONUS Virtual Local
+   Network, especially the addressing related features.  These features
+   include a method for mapping between Internet Addresses and Local
+   Network addresses.  This is a topic of current concern in the ARPA
+   Internet community.  This note is intended to stimulate discussion.
+   This is not a specification of an Internet Standard.
+
+823     Hinden       Sep 82      The DARPA Internet Gateway
+
+   This RFC is a status report on the Internet Gateway developed by BBN.
+   It describes the Internet Gateway as of September 1982.  This memo
+   presents detailed descriptions of message formats and gateway
+   procedures, however, this is not an implementation specification, and
+   such details are subject to change.
+
+822     Crocker      Aug 82      Standard for the Format of ARPA
+                                 Internet Text Messages
+
+   This document revises the specifications in RFC 733, in order to
+   serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA Internet.  Some
+   of RFC 733's features failed to gain adequate acceptance.  In order
+   to simplify the standard and the software that follows it, these
+   features have been removed.  A different addressing scheme is used,
+   to handle the case of internetwork mail; and the concept of
+   re-transmission has been introduced.  Obsoletes RFC 733, NIC 41952.
+
+821     Postel       Aug 82      Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
+
+   The objective of Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is to transfer
+   mail reliably and efficiently.  SMTP is independent of the particular
+   transmission subsystem and requires only a reliable ordered data
+   stream channel.  Obsoletes RFC 788, 780, and 772.
+
+820     Postel       Jan 82      Assigned Numbers
+
+   This RFC is an old version, see RFC 870.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 14]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+819     Zaw-Sing Su  Aug 82      The Domain Naming Convention for
+                                 Internet User Applications
+
+   This RFC is an attempt to clarify the generalization of the Domain
+   Naming Convention, the Internet Naming Convention, and to explore the
+   implications of its adoption for Internet name service and user
+   applications.
+
+818     Postel       Nov 82      The Remote User Telnet Service
+
+   This RFC is the specification of an application protocol.  Any host
+   that implements this application level service must follow this
+   protocol.
+
+817     Clark        Jul 82      Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
+                                 Implementation
+
+   This RFC will discuss some of the commonly encountered reasons why
+   protocol implementations seem to run slowly.
+
+816     Clark        Jul 82      Fault Isolation and Recovery
+
+   This RFC describes the portion of fault isolation and recovery which
+   is the responsibility of the host.
+
+815     Clark        Jul 82      IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
+
+   This RFC describes an alternate approach of dealing with reassembly
+   which reduces the bookkeeping problem to a minimum, and requires only
+   one buffer for storage equal in size to the final datagram being
+   reassembled, which can reassemble a datagram from any number of
+   fragments arriving in any order with any possible pattern of overlap
+   and duplication, and which is appropriate for almost any sort of
+   operating system.
+
+814     Clark        Jul 82      Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
+
+   This RFC gives suggestions and guidance for the design of the tables
+   and algorithms necessary to keep track of these various sorts of
+   identifiers inside a host implementation of TCP/IP.
+
+813     Clark        Jul 82      Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
+                                 TCP
+
+   This RFC describes implementation strategies to deal with two
+   mechanisms in TCP, the window and the acknowledgement.  It also
+   presents a particular set of algorithms which have received testing
+   in the field, and which appear to work properly with each other.
+   With more experience, these algorithms may become part of the formal
+   specification, until such time their use is recommended.
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 15]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+812     Harrenstien   Mar 82     NICNAME/WHOIS
+
+   This RFC gives a description of what the NICNAME/WHOIS Server is and
+   how to access it.  This server together with the corresponding
+   Identification Data Base provides online directory look-up equivalent
+   to the ARPANET Directory.
+
+811     Harrenstien   Mar 82      Hostnames Server
+
+   This RFC gives a description of what the Hostnames Server is and how
+   to access it.  The function of this particular server is to deliver
+   machine-readable name/address information describing networks,
+   gateways, hosts, and eventually domains, within the internet
+   environment.
+
+810     Feinler      Mar 82      DoD Internet Host Table Specification
+
+   This RFC specifies a new host table format applicable to both ARPANET
+   and Internet needs.  In addition to host name to host address
+   translation and selected protocol information, we have also included
+   network and gateway name to address correspondence, and host
+   operating system information.  This RFC obsoletes the host table
+   described in RFC 608.
+
+809     Chang        Feb 82      UCL Facsimile System
+
+   This RFC describes the features of the computerised facsimile system
+   developed in the Department of Computer Science at UCL.  First its
+   functions are considered and the related experimental work are
+   reported.  Then the disciplines for system design are discussed.
+   Finally, the implementation of the system are described, while
+   detailed description are given as appendices.
+
+808     Postel       Mar 82      Summary of Computer Mail Services
+                                 Meeting Held at BBN on 10 January 1979
+
+   This RFC is a very belated attempt to document a meeting that was
+   held three years earlier to discuss the state of computer mail in the
+   ARPA community and to reach some conclusions to guide the further
+   development of computer mail systems such that a coherent total mail
+   service would continue to be provided.
+
+807     Postel       Feb 82      Multimedia Mail Meeting Notes
+
+   This RFC consists of notes from a meeting held at USC Information
+   Sciences Institute on the 12th of January to discuss common interests
+   in multimedia computer mail issues and to agree on some specific
+   initial experiments.
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 16]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+806     NBS          Sep 81      Specification for Message Format for
+                                 Computer Based Message Systems
+
+   This RFC deals with Computer Based Message systems which provides a
+   basis for interaction between different CBMS by defining the format
+   of messages passed between them.  This RFC is replaced by RFC 841.
+
+805     Postel       Feb 82      Computer Mail Meeting Notes
+
+   This RFC consists of notes from a meeting that was held at USC
+   Information Sciences Institute on 11 January 1982, to discuss
+   addressing issues in computer mail. The major conclusion reached at
+   the meeting is to extend the "username@hostname" mailbox format to
+   "username@host.domain", where the domain itself can be further
+   strutured.
+
+804     CCITT        Jan 82      CCITT Draft Recommendation T.4
+
+   This is the CCITT standard for group 3 facsimile encoding.  This is
+   useful for data compression of bit map data.
+
+803     Agarwal      Nov 81      Dacom 450/500 Facsimile Data
+                                 Transcoding
+
+   The first part of this RFC describes in detail the Dacom 450 data
+   compression algorithms and is an update and correction to an earlier
+   memorandum.  The second part of this RFC describes briefly the Dacom
+   500 data compression algorithm as used by the INTELPOST
+   electronic-mail network under development by the US Postal Service
+   and several foreign administrators.
+
+802     Malis        Nov 81      The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
+
+   This document proposed two major changes to the current ARPANET host
+   access protocol.  The first change will allow hosts to use logical
+   addressing (i.e., host addresses that are independent of their
+   physical location on the ARPANET) to communicate with each other, and
+   the second will allow a host to shorten the amount of time that it
+   may be blocked by its IMP after it presents a message to the network
+   (currently, the IMP can block further input from a host for up to 15
+   seconds).  See RFCs 852 and 851.
+
+801     Postel       Nov 81      NCP/TCP Transition Plan
+
+   This RFC discusses the conversion of hosts from NCP to TCP.  And
+   making available the principle services:  Telnet, File Transfer, and
+   Mail.  These protocols allow all hosts in the ARPA community to share
+   a common interprocess communication environment.
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 17]
+
+
+
+RFC 899                                                         May 1984
+
+
+800     Postel       Nov 82      Requests for Comments Summary
+
+   This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 700
+   through RFC 799.  This is a status report on these RFCs.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel & Westine                                               [page 18]
+