summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt619
1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..147ef99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1160.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,619 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group V. Cerf
+Request for Comments: 1160 NRI
+Obsoletes: RFC 1120 May 1990
+
+
+ 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. This is
+ a revision of RFC 1120. 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]. 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 [RFC 1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK
+ 86].
+
+ 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 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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 Laboratory 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 sponsored most of the U.S. research
+ on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board
+ and its subsidiary organizations.
+
+ In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a larger initiative
+ sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal Coordinating
+ Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET). The
+ reorganization created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and its
+ Working Groups. The membership of the FNC included all the former
+ FRICC members and many other U.S. Government representatives. The
+ first chairman of the FNC is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the National
+ Science Foundation. The FNC is the Federal Government's body for
+ coordinating the agencies that support the Internet. It provides
+ liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by the
+ President's Science Advisor) which is responsible for setting science
+ and technology policy affecting the Internet. It endorses and
+ employs the existing planning and operational activities of the
+ community-based bodies that have grown up to manage the Internet in
+ the United States. The FNC plans to involve user and supplier
+ communities through creation of an external advisory board and will
+ coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives ranging
+ from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to educational
+ applications. The FNC has also participated in planning for the
+ creation of a National Research and Education Network in the United
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ States.
+
+ At the international level, a Coordinating Committee for
+ Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed which
+ includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America and
+ Europe. Co-chaired by the executive directors of the FNC and the
+ European Association of Research Networks (RARE), 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 two thousand of packet switched networks located
+ principally in the U.S., but also 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
+ constituent members of the Internet.
+
+ IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet function
+ effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future. 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 and is elected by the members of the IAB. 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
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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 1140].
+
+ RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions
+ whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly to
+ the RFC editor. A Standard Protocol 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 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 submitted to the RFC editor for
+ publication or discarded within 3-6 months. Prior to promotion to
+ Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and review
+ cycle may be initiated if significant changes to the RFC are
+ contemplated.
+
+ 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 an international 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
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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 minutes of the IAB meetings are
+ published in the Internet Monthly on-line report.
+
+ The IAB membership is currently as follows:
+
+ Vinton Cerf/CNRI Chairman
+ Robert Braden/USC-ISI Executive Director
+ David Clark/MIT-LCS IRTF Chairman
+ Phillip Gross/CNRI IETF Chairman
+ Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI RFC Editor
+ Hans-Werner Braun/Merit Member
+ Lyman Chapin/DG Member
+ Stephen Kent/BBN Member
+ Anthony Lauck/Digital Member
+ Barry Leiner/RIACS Member
+ Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc. Member
+
+3. The Internet Engineering Task Force
+
+ The Internet has grown to encompass a large number of widely
+ geographically dispersed networks in academic and research
+ communities. It now provides an infrastructure for a broad community
+ with various 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
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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 - Russ Hobby/UC-Davis
+ 2) Host and User Services - Craig Partridge/BBN
+ 3) Internet Services - Noel Chiappa/Consultant
+ 4) Routing - Robert Hinden/BBN
+ 5) Network Management - David Crocker/DEC
+ 6) OSI Integration - Ross Callon/DEC and
+ Robert Hagens/UWisc.
+ 7) Operations - Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting)
+ 8) Security - Steve Crocker/TIS
+
+ The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as Working
+ Groups. There are currently more than 40 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
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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 of these 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/MIT LCS - Chairman
+ Robert Braden/USC-ISI - End-to-End Services
+ Douglas Comer/PURDUE - Member-at-Large
+ Deborah Estrin/USC - Autonomous Networks
+ Stephen Kent/BBN - Privacy and Security
+ Keith Lantz/Consultant - Collaboration Technology
+ David Mills/UDEL - 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 versions of the BIND domain name
+ service resolver software. To the extent that the existing Exterior
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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. Flexiblity 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 were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989.
+
+ Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (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
+ 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, and RFC 1148] should be targeted for 1990 as well. These
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+ 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.
+
+ 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
+ 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., Kahn, R., Ornstein, S., Crowther, W.,
+ 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), Uncapher, K. 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), Nielson, D., 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.
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+
+ [LEINER 85] Leiner, B., Cole, R., Postel, J., 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.
+
+ [RFC 1000] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "The Request for
+ Comments Reference Guide", RFC 1000, USC/Information Sciences
+ Institute, 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 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.
+
+ [RFC 1140] Postel, J., Editor, "IAB Official Protocol
+ Standards", RFC 1140, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.
+
+
+
+Cerf [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
+
+
+
+ [RFC 1148] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021
+ and RFC 822", RFC 1048, UCL, March 1990.
+
+ [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.
+
+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