diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1120.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1120.txt | 619 |
1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1120.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1120.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4e07dd --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1120.txt @@ -0,0 +1,619 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group V. Cerf +Request for Comments: 1120 NRI + September 1989 + + + The Internet Activities Board + +Status of this Memo + + This RFC provides a history and description of the Internet + Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations. This memo + is for informational use and does not constitute a standard. + Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +1. Introduction + + In 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) + initiated an effort to develop a technology which is now known as + packet switching. This technology had its roots in message switching + methods, but was strongly influenced by the development of low-cost + minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during the + mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78]. A very + useful survey of this technology can be found in [IEEE 78]. + + During the early 1970's, DARPA initiated a number of programs to + explore the use of packet switching methods in alternative media + including mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78, IEEE 87]. + Concurrently, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) began an + exploration of packet switching on coaxial cable which ultimately led + to the development of Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76]. + + The successful implementation of packet radio and packet satellite + technology raised the question of interconnecting ARPANET with other + types of packet nets. A possible solution to this problem was + proposed by Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] in the form of an internetwork + protocol and a set of gateways to connect the different networks. + This solution was further developed as part of a research program in + internetting sponsored by DARPA and resulted in a collection of + computer communications protocols based on the original Transmission + Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower level counterpart, Internet + Protocol (IP). Together, these protocols, along with many others + developed during the course of the research, are referred to as the + TCP/IP Protocol Suite [LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK 86, RFC + 1100]. + + In the early stages of the Internet research program, only a few + researchers worked to develop and test versions of the internet + protocols. Over time, the size of this activity increased until, in + + + +Cerf [Page 1] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + 1979, it was necessary to form an informal committee to guide the + technical evolution of the protocol suite. This group was called the + Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) and was established by + Dr. Vinton Cerf who was then the DARPA program manager for the + effort. Dr. David C. Clark of the Lab for Computer Science at + Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named the chairman of this + committee. + + In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency, then responsible + for the operation of the ARPANET, declared the TCP/IP protocol suite + to be standard for the ARPANET and all systems on the network + converted from the earlier Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP. + Late that year, the ICCB was reorganized by Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf's + successor at DARPA, around a series of task forces considering + different technical aspects of internetting. The re-organized group + was named the Internet Activities Board. + + As the Internet expanded, it drew support from U.S. Government + organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), + the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space + Administration (NASA). Key managers in these organizations, + responsible for computer networking research and development, formed + an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) + to coordinate U.S. Government support for and development and use of + the Internet system. The FRICC sponsors most of the U.S. research on + internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board and + its subsidiary organizations. + + At the international level, a Coordinating Committee for + Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed which + includes the U.S. FRICC and its counterparts in North America and + Europe. The CCIRN provides a forum for cooperative planning among + the principal North American and European research networking bodies. + +2. Internet Activities Board + + The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee for + Internet design, engineering and management. The Internet is a + collection of over a thousand packet switched networks located + principally in the U.S., but also includes systems in many other + parts of the world, all interlinked and operating using the protocols + of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The IAB is an independent committee of + researchers and professionals with a technical interest in the health + and evolution of the Internet system. Membership changes with time + to adjust to the current realities of the research interests of the + participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns of + the U.S. Government, university and industrial sponsors of the + elements of the Internet. + + + +Cerf [Page 2] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet function + effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future. All + IAB members are required to have at least one other major role in the + Internet community in addition to their IAB membership. New members + are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice and consent + of the remaining members. The chairman serves a term of two years. + + The IAB focuses on the TCP/IP protocol suite, and extensions to the + Internet system to support multiple protocol suites. + + The IAB has two principal subsidiary task forces: + + 1) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) + + 2) Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) + + Each of these Task Forces is led by a chairman and guided by a + Steering Group which reports to the IAB through its chairman. Each + task force is organized by the chairman, as required, to carry out + its charter. For the most part, a collection of Working Groups + carries out the work program of each Task Force. + + All decisions of the IAB are made public. The principal vehicle by + which IAB decisions are propagated to the parties interested in the + Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for Comment + (RFC) note series. The archival RFC series was initiated in 1969 by + Dr. Stephen D. Crocker as a means of documenting the development of + the original ARPANET protocol suite [RFC 1000]. The editor-in-chief + of this series, Dr. Jonathan B. Postel, has maintained the quality + of and managed the archiving of this series since its inception. A + small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards. Most of + them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion. The small + number which document standards are especially marked in a "status" + section to indicate the special status of the document. An RFC + summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published regularly + [RFC 1100]. + + RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions + whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly to + the RFC Editor. A Standard RFC starts out as a Proposed Standard and + may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally Standard after suitable + review, comment, implementation, and testing. + + Prior to publication of a Proposed Standard, Draft Standard or + Standard RFC, it is made available for comment through an on-line + Internet-Draft directory. Typically, these Internet-Drafts are + working documents of the IAB or of the working groups of the Internet + Engineering and Research Task Forces. Internet Drafts are either + + + +Cerf [Page 3] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + submitted to the RFC Editor for publication or discarded within three + months. + + The IAB performs the following functions: + + 1) Sets Internet Standards, + + 2) Manages the RFC publication process, + + 3) Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF, + + 4) Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying + long-range problems and opportunities, + + 5) Acts as a technical policy liaison and representative for the + Internet community, and + + 6) Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within the + IETF or IRTF frameworks. + + To supplement its work via electronic mail, the IAB meets quarterly + to review the condition of the Internet, to review and approve + proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols, to + set technical development priorities, to discuss policy matters which + may need the attention of the Internet sponsors, and to agree on the + addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition or + retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB. Typically, two of + the quarterly meetings are by means of video teleconferencing + (provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet packet + video-conferencing system). + + The IAB membership is currently as follows: + + Vinton Cerf - Chairman + David Clark - IRTF Chairman + Phillip Gross - IETF Chairman + Jonathan Postel - RFC Editor + Robert Braden - Executive Director + Hans-Werner Braun - Member + Barry Leiner - Member + Daniel Lynch - Member + Stephen Kent - Member + +3. The Internet Engineering Task Force + + The Internet has grown to encompass a large number of widely geo- + graphically dispersed networks in academic and research communities. + It now provides an infrastructure for a broad community with various + + + +Cerf [Page 4] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + interests. Moreover, the family of Internet protocols and system + components has moved from experimental to commercial development. To + help coordinate the operation, management and evolution of the + Internet, the IAB established the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). + + The IETF is chaired by Mr. Phillip Gross and managed by its Internet + Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The IAB has delegated to the IESG + the general responsibility for making the Internet work and for the + resolution of all short- and mid-range protocol and architectural + issues required to make the Internet function effectively. + + The charter of the IETF includes: + + 1) Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-term + Internet protocols and architecture and recommending + standards for IAB approval. + + 2) Provision of a forum for the exchange of information within the + Internet community. + + 3) Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-range + operational and technical problem areas and convening of + Working Groups to explore solutions. + + The Internet Engineering Task Force is a large open community of + network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with + the Internet and the Internet protocol suite. It is organized around + a set of eight technical areas, each managed by a technical area + director. In addition to the IETF Chairman, the area directors make + up the IESG membership. Each area director has primary + responsibility for one area of Internet engineering activity, and + hence for a subset of the IETF Working Groups. The area directors + have jobs of critical importance and difficulty and are selected not + only for their technical expertise but also for their managerial + skills and judgment. At present, the eight technical areas and + chairs are: + + 1) Applications - TBD + 2) Host Services - Craig Partridge + 3) Internet Services - Noel Chiappa + 4) Routing - Robert Hinden + 5) Network Management - David Crocker + 6) OSI Coexistence - Ross Callon and Robert Hagens + 7) Operations - TBD + 8) Security - TBD + + The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as Working + + + +Cerf [Page 5] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + Groups. There are currently more than 20 of these. Working Groups + tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of a + specific task, although there are exceptions. The IETF is a major + source of proposed protocol standards, for final approval by the IAB. + + The IETF meets quarterly and extensive minutes of the plenary + proceedings as well as reports from each of the working groups are + issued by the IAB Secretariat, at the Corporation for National + Research Initiatives. + +4. The Internet Research Task Force + + To promote research in networking and the development of new + technology, the IAB established the Internet Research Task Force + (IRTF). + + In the area of network protocols, the distinction between research + and engineering is not always clear, so there will sometimes be + overlap between activities of the IETF and the IRTF. There is, in + fact, considerable overlap in membership between the two groups. This + overlap is regarded as vital for cross-fertilization and technology + transfer. In general, the distinction between research and + engineering is one of viewpoint and sometimes (but not always) time- + frame. The IRTF is generally more concerned with understanding than + with products or standard protocols, although specific experimental + protocols may have to be developed, implemented and tested in order + to gain understanding. + + The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with an + Internet focus. The work of the IRTF is governed by its Internet + Research Steering Group (IRSG). The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG is + David Clark. The IRTF is organized into a number of Research Groups + (RGs) whose chairs are appointed by the chairman of the IRSG. The RG + chairs and others selected by the IRSG chairman serve on the IRSG. + + These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and each covers a broad + area of research, pursuing specific topics, determined at least in + part by the interests of the members and by recommendations of the + IAB. + + The current members of the IRSG are as follows: + + David Clark - Chairman + Robert Braden - End-to-End Services + Douglas Comer - Member at Large + Deborah Estrin - Autonomous Networks + + + + + +Cerf [Page 6] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + Stephen Kent - Privacy and Security + Keith Lantz - User Interfaces + David Mills - Member at Large + +5. The Near-term Agenda of the IAB + + There are seven principal foci of IAB attention for the period 1989 - + 1990: + + 1) Operational Stability + 2) User Services + 3) OSI Coexistence + 4) Testbed Facilities + 5) Security + 6) Getting Big + 7) Getting Fast + + Operational stability of the Internet is a critical concern for all + of its users. Better tools are needed for gathering operational + data, to assist in fault isolation at all levels and to analyze the + performance of the system. Opportunities abound for increased + cooperation among the operators of the various Internet components + [RFC 1109]. Specific, known problems should be dealt with, such as + implementation deficiencies in some version of the BIND domain name + service resolver software. To the extent that the existing Exterior + Gateway Protocol (EGP) is only able to support limited topologies, + constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths should + be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System routing + protocol can be specified. Flexibility for Internet implementation + would be enhanced by the adoption of a common internal gateway + routing protocol by all vendors of internet routers. A major effort + is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements RFCs + which are to be published early in the fourth quarter of calendar + 1989. + + Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (an electronic + mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing. Efforts should + be focused on widespread deployment of these capabilities in the + Internet by mid-1990. The IAB recommends that existing white pages + facilities and newer ones, such as X.500, be populated with up-to- + date user information and made accessible to Internet users and users + of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to the + Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail carriers + should be vigorously pursued, as well as links to other network + research communities in Europe and the rest of the world. + + Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic mail + software should be accelerated in 1990 after release of public domain + + + +Cerf [Page 7] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + software implementing the private electronic mail standards [RFC + 1113, RFC 1114, and RFC 1115]. Finally, support for new or enhanced + applications such as computer-based conferencing, multi-media + messaging and collaboration support systems should be developed. + + The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the FRICC + should be applied to support conferencing and collaboration protocol + development and application experiments and to support multi-vendor + router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing, + network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding). + + With respect to growth in the Internet, architectural attention + should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions of + users and hundreds of thousands of networks. The naming, addressing, + routing and navigation problems occasioned by such growth should be + analyzed. Similarly, research should be carried out on analyzing the + limits to the existing Internet architecture, including the ability + of the present protocol suite to cope with speeds in the gigabit + range and latencies varying from microseconds to seconds in duration. + + The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI protocols + by the end of 1990 or sooner, if possible. Provision for multi- + protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is one + important goal. Introduction of X.400 electronic mail services and + interoperation with RFC 822/SMTP [RFC 822, RFC 821, RFC 987, RFC + 1026] should be targeted for 1990 as well. These efforts will need + to work in conjunction with the White Pages services mentioned above. + The IETF, in particular, should establish liaison with various OSI + working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE, Network Management Forum) to + coordinate planning for OSI introduction into the Internet and to + facilitate registration of information pertinent to the Internet with + the various authorities responsible for OSI standards in the United + States. + +Security Considerations + + Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be made + to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host managers + concerning configuration management, known security problems (and + their solutions) and software and technologies available to provide + enhanced security and privacy to the users of the Internet. + +REFERENCES + + [BARAN 64] Baran, P., et al, "On Distributed Communications", + Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August 1964. + + [CERF 74] Cerf V., and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network + + + +Cerf [Page 8] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + Interconnection", IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-22, + No. 5, pp. 637-648, May 1974. + + [CERF 82] Cerf V., and E. Cain, "The DoD Internet Protocol + Architecture", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology Center + Symposium on Interoperability of Automated Data Systems, + November 1982. Also in Computer Networks and ISDN, + Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1983. + + [CLARK 86] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA + Internet protocols", Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Symposium, + Computer Communications Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 106-114, + August 1988. + + [HEART 70] Heart, F., R. Kahn, S. Ornstein, W. Crowther, and D. + Walden, "The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA Computer + Network", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567, June 1970. + + [IEEE 78] Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), K. Uncapher, and + H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the + IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks, + Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978. + + [IEEE 87] Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), D. Nielson, and + F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the + IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75, + No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987. + + [LEINER 85] Leiner, B., R. Cole, J. Postel, and D. Mills, + "The DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., + March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985. + + [METCALFE 76] Metcalfe, R., and D. Boggs, "Ethernet: + Distributed Packet for Local Computer Networks", Communications + of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976. + + [POSTEL 85] Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the + DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., + March 1985. + + [RFC 821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 821, + USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982. + + [RFC 822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet + Text Messages", RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982. + + [RFC 987] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822", + University College London, June 1986. + + + +Cerf [Page 9] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + + + [RFC 1000] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "The Request for + Comments References Guide", USC/Information Sciences Institute, + RFC 1000, August 1987. + + [RFC 1026] Kille, S., "Addendum to RFC 987: (Mapping between + X.400 and RFC 822)", RFC 1026, University College London, + September 1987. + + [RFC 1100] Postel, J. (Editor), "IAB Official Protocol + Standards", RFC 1100, April 1989. + + [RFC 1109] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network + Management Review Group", RFC 1109, NRI, August 1989. + + [RFC 1113] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet + Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and + Authentication Procedures", RFC 1113, IAB Privacy Task + Force, August 1989. + + [RFC 1114] Kent, S., and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement for + Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based Key + Management", RFC 1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989. + + [RFC 1115] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet + Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers", + RFC 1115, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989. + + [ROBERTS 70] Roberts, L., and B. Wessler, "Computer Network + Development to Achieve Resource Sharing", pp. 543-549, + Proc. SJCC 1970. + + [ROBERTS 78] Roberts, L., "Evolution of Packet Switching", + Proc. IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 1307-1313, November 1978. + + Note: RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at + SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, + (1-800-235-3155), or on-line via anonymous file transfer from + NIC.DDN.MIL. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Cerf [Page 10] + +RFC 1120 The IAB September 1989 + + +Author's Address + + Vinton G. Cerf + Corporation for National Research Initiatives + 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 + Reston, VA 22091 + + Phone: (703) 620-8990 + + EMail: VCERF@NRI.RESTON.VA.US + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Cerf [Page 11] +
\ No newline at end of file |