1 files changed, 271 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc37.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc37.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2d5cd95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc37.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        S. Crocker
+Request for Comments: 37                                           UCLA
+                                                          20 March 1970
+
+                     Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.
+
+The Meeting
+-----------
+
+  On Tuesday, March 17, 1970, I hosted a Network meeting at UCLA.
+  About 25 people attended, including representatives from MIT, LL,
+  BBN, Harvard, SRI, Utah, UCSB, SDC, RAND and UCLA.  I presented a
+  modification of the protocol in NWG/RFC #33; the modifications are
+  sketchily documented in NWG/RFC #36.  The main modification is the
+  facility for dynamic reconnection.
+
+  The protocol based on sockets and undistinguished simplex
+  connections is quite different from the previous protocol as
+  documented in NWG/RFC #11.  The impetus for making such changes came
+  out of the network meeting on December 8, 1969, at Utah, at which
+  time the limitations of a log-in requirement and the inability to
+  connect arbitrary processes was seriously challenged.  Accordingly,
+  the primary reason for the recent meeting was to sample opinion on
+  the new protocol.
+
+  Recollections may vary, but it is my opinion that the protocol was
+  widely accepted and that the criticism and discussion fell into two
+  categories:
+
+  1.  Questioning the complexity and usefulness of the full protocol,
+      especially the need for dynamic reconnection.
+
+  2.  Other topics, particularly character set translation, higher
+      level languages, incompatible equipment, etc.
+
+  Notably lacking was any criticism of the basic concepts of sockets
+  and connections.  (Some have since surfaced.)  The following
+  agreements were made:
+
+  1.  By April 30, I would be responsible for publishing an
+      implementable specification along lines presented.
+
+  2.  Any interested party would communicate with me (at least)
+      immediately if he wished to modify the protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 1]
+
+RFC 37             Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.         20 March 1970
+
+  3.  If major modifications come under consideration, interested
+      parties would meet again.  This would happen in two to three
+      weeks.
+
+  4.  Jim Forgie of Lincoln Labs tentatively agreed to host a meeting
+      on higher level network languages, probably near Spring Joint
+      time.
+
+Mailing List Changes
+--------------------
+
+  Paul Rovner of LL is replaced by
+
+                   James Forgie
+                   Mass. Institute of Technology
+                   Lincoln Laboratory C158
+                   P.O. Box 73
+                   Lexington, Mass. 02173
+
+                   telephone at (617) 862-5500 ext. 7173
+
+  Professor George MEaly is added
+
+                   George Mealy
+                   Rm. 220
+                   Aitken Computation Lab.
+                   Harvard University
+                   Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
+
+                   telephone at (617) 868-1020 ext. 4355
+
+Process
+-------
+
+  In all of our writing we have used the term process, to mean a
+  program which has an assigned location counter and an address space.
+  A program is merely a pattern of bits stored in some file.  A new
+  process is created only by an already existing process.  The
+  previous process must execute an atomic operation (forc, attach,
+  etc.) to cause such a creation.  Processes may either cause their
+  own demise or be terminated by another (usually superior) process.
+
+  The above definition corresponds to the definition given by
+  Vyssotsky, et al on pp.  206, 207 of "Structure of the Multics
+  Supervisor" in the FJCC proceedings, 1965.
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 2]
+
+RFC 37             Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.         20 March 1970
+
+  Because a process may create another process, and because in general
+  the two processes are indistinguishable when viewed externally, I
+  know of no reasonable way for two processes to request connection
+  directly with each other.  The function of sockets is to provide a
+  standard interface between processes.
+
+The Days After
+--------------
+
+  In the time since the meeting I have had conversations with Steve
+  Wolfe (UCLA-CCN), Bill Crowther (BBN), and John Heafner and Erick
+  Harslem (RAND).  Wolf's comments will appear as NWG/RFC #38 and fall
+  into a class I will comment on below.
+
+  Crowther submitted the following:
+
+  "A brief description of two ideas for simplifying the host protocol
+  described at the March meeting.  These ideas have not been carefully
+  worked out.
+
+  Idea 1. To Reconnect.
+  --------------------
+
+  "A NCP wanting to Reconnect tells each of his neighbors "I want to
+  reconnect".  They wait until there are no messages in transit and
+  respond "OK".  He then says "Reconnect as follows" and they do it.
+  In the Rare condition, the NCP gets back an "I want to reconnect
+  instead of an "OK", then one must go and one must stop.  So treat a
+  "reconnect" from a higher Host user etc. as an ok and from a lower
+  as a "No-wait until I reconnect you" and do the connection.
+
+  Idea 2
+  ------
+
+  "Decouple connections and links.  Still establish connections, but
+  use any handy link for the messages.  Don't send another message on
+  a connection until a FRNM comes back.  Include source and
+  destination socket numbers in the packet.
+
+  "To reconnect, say to each of neighbors "please reconnect me as
+  follows...".  Hold onto the connect for a short time (seconds) and
+  send both packets and connection messages along toward their
+  destinations.  I haven't worked out how to keep the in-transit
+  messages in order, but probably everything works if you don't send
+  out a reconnect when RFNM's are pending."
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 3]
+
+RFC 37             Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.         20 March 1970
+
+  Bill's first idea does not seem to me to be either decisively better
+  or (after some thought) very different, and I am considering it.  I
+  have no strong feelings about it yet, but I am trying to develop
+  some.
+
+  Bill's second idea seems contrary to my conception of the role of
+  links.  An argument in favor of decoupling connections and links
+  that the number of connections between two hosts might want to
+  exceed 255, and that even if not, it is sounder practice to isolate
+  dependancies in design.  On the other hand, the newly provided Cease
+  on Link facility* (page 22 of the soon to be released BBN report
+  #1822 revised Febuary 1970) becomes useless.  (Bill, who just put
+  the feature in, doesn't care.)  Another objection is that it seems
+  intuitively bad to waste the possibility of using the link field to
+  carry information.  (Note the conflict of gut level feelings).
+
+  In a conversation with John Haefner and Eric Harslem of RAND, the
+  pointed out that the current protocol makes no provision for error
+  detection and reporting, status testing and reporting, and expansion
+  and experimentation.  Error detection and status testing will
+  require some extended discussion to see what is useful, and I expect
+  that such discussion will take place while implementation proceeds.
+  Leaving room for protocol expansion and experimentation, however, is
+  best done now.
+
+  I suggest that two areas for expansion be reserved.  One is that
+  only a fraction of the 256 links be used, say the first 32.  The
+  other area is to use command codes from 255 downward, with permanent
+  codes assigned from the number of links in use to 32, I feel that it
+  is quite unlikely that we would need more than 32 for quite some
+  time, and moreover, the network probably wouldn't handle traffic
+  implied by heavy link assignment.  (These two things aren't
+  necessarily strongly coupled:  one can have many links assigned but
+  only a few carrying traffic at any given time.)
+
+  Some of Heafner's and Harslen's other ideas may appear in NWG/RFC
+  form.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 4]
+
+RFC 37             Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.         20 March 1970
+
+  Immediate Interaction
+  ---------------------
+
+  During the next several days, I will still be interested in those
+  editicisms of current protocol which might lead to rejection or
+  serious modification of it.  Thereafter, the focus will be a
+  refinement, implementation, extension, and utilization.  I may be
+  reached at UCLA through my secretary Mrs. Benita Kristel at (213)
+  825-2368.  Also, everyone is invited to contribuet to the NWG/RFC
+  series.  Unique numbers are assigned by Benita.
+
+  * The Cease on Link facility is a way a receiving host modifies
+    RFNM's so as to carry a flow-quenching meaning.  An alternative
+    proceedure is to use a host-to-host control command.
+
+       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+        [ into the online RFC archives by Ron Fitzherbert 1/97 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 5]
+