summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc100.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc100.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc100.txt2075
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+ superseded.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]
+