summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc807.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc807.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc807.txt348
1 files changed, 348 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc807.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc807.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..88f995a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc807.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
+
+
+Network Working Group J. Postel
+Request for Comments: 807 ISI
+ 9 February 1982
+
+
+
+ Multimedia Mail Meeting Notes
+
+
+
+
+Introduction
+
+ A meeting was held at USC Information Sciences Institute on the 12th
+ of January 1982 to discuss multimedia mail issues and experiments.
+ The list of attendees is at the end of this memo.
+
+Overview:
+
+ This meeting was called to discuss common interests in multi-media
+ computer mail experiments, and to agree on some specific initial
+ experiments.
+
+Review of Status:
+
+ Review current status of multimedia efforts at CMU, ISI, MIT, COMSAT,
+ BBN, UCL, SRI.
+
+ CMU
+
+ Using PERQ, Quip for fax, LPCM vocoder from LL, will get NEC board
+ (3 chips) to replace vocoder. Will have a stand alone voice I/O
+ device that operates at 2400 baud (not packetized). Not working on
+ IP/TCP. Will use the IP and TCP from the BBN project. Already
+ using the BBN Jericho developed Pascal IP and CFTP. Interested in
+ word recognition of LPC digitized voice data. Planning to package
+ a synthesiser, an analyzer, and a pitch tracker on one board.
+
+ ISI
+
+ Using TOPS20 (code in BLISS10), and starting to use PERQ (code in
+ Pascal), RAPICOM 450 for fax. Main interest is in the data
+ structuring and message transport protocols.
+
+ MIT
+
+ Using Apollos, will program in MDL. Use of Apollos still limited
+ due to (1) MDL not completely implemented, (2) network interface
+ not yet available (waiting on multibus to then interface to
+ Ethernet). Will get NEC CCITT fax machine. Looking into VAX+BBN
+ BitGraph for future. Main work to date in design for sharing
+ message data in a conceptualy centralized filing system. Emphasis
+
+
+Postel [Page 1]
+
+
+
+Multi-Media Mail Meeting Notes 9 February 1982
+
+
+ on efficient storage and manipulation of multirecipient messages,
+ enclosures, citations, etc.
+
+ COMSAT
+
+ Using small 11s, Rapicom 450 and 500 fax machines, also have some
+ LPC vocoders. Substantial work has been done on encoding and
+ decoding both Rapicom 450 and CCITT T.4 fax data, and also on
+ manipulation of bitmap data (See RFC 803).
+
+ BBN
+
+ Using Jericho (code in Pascal). Will be building a prototype
+ system with the aim of investigating problems of data distribution
+ and privacy. Trying to produce portable software currently in
+ Pascal but may switch to ADA in the distant future. Have IP and
+ CFTP running, working on TCP. CFTP is a file transfer built
+ directly on IP.
+
+ UCL
+
+ Using LSI-11, Rapicom 450 fax machine, Grinell bitmap display.
+ May get PERQs (produced by ICL) in future. Have done quite a lot
+ of work on encoding/decoding for the Rapicom 450, and in bitmap
+ manipulations (e.g., cleanup of noise, scaling, cut and paste).
+ Interests in the relation of other types of display protocols to
+ multimedia effort e.g., VIDEOTEXT and TELETEXT.
+
+ SRI
+
+ There are three multimedia mail projects at SRI,sponsored by DCEC,
+ ARPA, and NAVELEX. SRI is a subcontractor (with Sytek and DTI) to
+ SDC in the DCEC program to produce protocol specifications for the
+ DoD. SRI has written service specifications for a mail system
+ similar to RFC759+767 with security features added. The ARPA
+ project is studying the issues involved in a multimedia mail
+ architecture based on RFC759+767, including negotiations,
+ envelopes, and multilevel security. The NAVELEX project is
+ investigating user interfaces for command and control
+ workstations, including natural language access to a data base.
+ The plan is to use RFC759+767 data structures to communicate text
+ and graphics, implemented on Foonly F-5s running Tenex with
+ Foo-Vision displays. The current choice for the graphics protocol
+ is Bisbey's GL2.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 2]
+
+
+
+Multi-Media Mail Meeting Notes 9 February 1982
+
+
+Discussion:
+
+ Coding/Decoding Algorithm:
+
+ We agree to use the encoding specified in the CCITT T.4
+ recommendation for the exchange of black and white bitmap data.
+
+ New Equipment:
+
+ It is reported that soon NEC will have CCITT T.4 Group 3 Fax
+ machines for about $15K.
+
+ NBS Mail Standard:
+
+ The possibility that the NBS Mail Format Standard is a workable
+ alternative to the RFC759+767 protocol is to be studied. What is
+ the relationship between these standards? Do we have comment on
+ the NBS Standard to submit to NBS?
+
+ Equipment Variations:
+
+ What happens if the receiver does not have equipment capable of
+ protraying some of the data (e.g., dosen't have a LPC vocoder)?
+ There are three subtopics: How many "standard" forms are
+ allowed?, What do you tell the user if you can't do it?, and How
+ does the cost of a medium (in memory or cpu cycles or portrayal
+ time) effect its use? The general feeling was that if there is
+ some type of data the receiving system can't portray, it should
+ simply tell the user "There is some data here I can't portray and
+ it's type is x.". The other aspects are items for further study.
+
+ Negotiation:
+
+ Does negotiation make sense in a mail system? What are the kinds
+ of things to be negotiated? One possiblity is to initially send
+ only pointers to the sections of a message, and have the recipient
+ system ask for the parts it can handle. Does this make sense in a
+ message relaying environment? Or for messsages with a fine scale
+ interleaving of media types? This topic is for further study.
+
+ Enclosures, Pointers, Cross References:
+
+ This seems too complex to handle at this meeting, so for now send
+ the whole thing. This is an item for further study.
+
+ Editing Multimedia Objects:
+
+ This is one of the most interesting parts of these research
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 3]
+
+
+
+Multi-Media Mail Meeting Notes 9 February 1982
+
+
+ projects, so each group will develop their own techniques, and we
+ will compare notes.
+
+ Manipulation of Bitmaps:
+
+ The issues involve aspect ratios, cut and paste, rotation and,
+ scaling. We need to compare notes and exchange algorithms. An
+ item for further study.
+
+ Mailbox IDs and Control Information:
+
+ With different types of source hosts and destination host
+ (timsharing systems, personal computers) and different types of
+ mail delivery schemes (append to file, query database server), do
+ we have sufficient control mechanisms and addressing modes? This
+ is an item for further study.
+
+ Storage and Transmission:
+
+ How do the requirements for memory, disk, cpu, and transmission
+ capacity differ for multimedia mail from text mail? This is an
+ item for further study.
+
+ Multimedia Virtual Message Format:
+
+ It is not clear that this is anything different than what is
+ specified by RFC759+767, but since it was not fully discussed it
+ is an item for further study.
+
+ Media Specific Protocols:
+
+ Specific format definitions are needed for each media. This is an
+ item for further study.
+
+ Interfaces to Other Systems:
+
+ How do we interface this multimeda system to opther systems (e.g.,
+ TELETEXT, VIDEOTEXT), and to text only mail systems (e.g.,
+ ARPAMAIL, TELEMAIL, ONTYM). This is an item for further study.
+
+An Experiment:
+
+ BITMAP-TEXT DOCUMENT EXCHANGE
+
+ Move the data between computers as a file, using any file transfer
+ method available.
+
+ The File is a complete RFC 759 Document.
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 4]
+
+
+
+Multi-Media Mail Meeting Notes 9 February 1982
+
+
+ Bitmap data is in revised COMSAT Image Data Format.
+
+ Two compression types are to be used:
+
+ Raw Bitmap
+
+ CCITT Algorithm
+
+ Text data is in RFC767 Paragraph Format.
+
+Action Items:
+
+ Start a New Note Series
+
+ For the exchange of protocols, formats, algorithms, procedures,
+ and other information between the multiamedia mail projects.
+
+ By: Jon Postel
+
+ Due: 1-Feb-82
+
+ Update RFCs 759 & 767
+
+ To remove typos and clairfy ambiguities.
+
+ By: Jon Postel
+
+ Due: 1-Feb-82
+
+ Update "Image Data Structure" Memo
+
+ To be more generally for bitmaps and not so focused on fax only.
+
+ By: Anil Agarwal
+
+ Due: 1-Feb-82
+
+ Compare and Contrast NBS Mail Standard with RFC 759+767 Protocol
+
+ Would the NBS Mail Standard be an adaquate alternative to the RFC
+ 759+767 approach?
+
+ By: each site
+
+ Due: Unspecified
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 5]
+
+
+
+Multi-Media Mail Meeting Notes 9 February 1982
+
+
+ Issue the NBS Mail Standard as an RFC
+
+ To aid in wide consideration of it. (Where does the online file
+ come from?)
+
+ By: Jon Postel
+
+ Due: Unspecified
+
+ Report on the differences between the NBS Mail Standard and other
+ things.
+
+ What are the differences between the NBS standard and the
+ RFC759+767 protocol?, the IFIP plans?, the CCITT plans?, and the
+ ISO plans?
+
+ By: Debbie Deustch
+
+ Due: Unspecified
+
+ Demonstrate FAX-TEXT Document Exchange
+
+ This demonstration is to be ready before and repeated at the User
+ Interface Meeting at CMU.
+
+ By: all sites
+
+ Due: 19-20 April 82
+
+Attendees:
+
+ Duane A. Adams DARPA/IPTO Adams@ISI (202) 694-8096
+ Vint Cerf DARPA/IPTO Cerf@ISI (202) 694-3049
+ Harry Forsdick BBN Forsdick@BBN (617) 497-3638
+ Bob Thomas BBN BThomas@BBND (617) 497-3483
+ Gene Ball CMU Ball@CMUA (412) 578-2569
+ Anil Agarwal COMSAT Agarwal@ISID (301) 863-6103
+ David L. Mills COMSAT Mills@ISID (202) 863-6092
+ Dave Lebling MIT PDL@MIT-XX (617) 253-1440
+ Jon Postel ISI Postel@ISIF (213) 822-1511
+ Greg Finn ISI Finn@ISIF (213) 822-1511
+ Alan Katz ISI Katz@ISIF (213) 822-1511
+ Carl Sunshine ISI Sunshine@ISIF (213) 822-1511
+ David Elliott SRI wde@SRI-KL (415) 859-4107
+ Andy Poggio SRI Poggio@SRI-Unix (415) 859 5094
+ Zaw-Sing Su SRI ZSu@SRI-Unix (415) 859-4576
+ Steve Kille UCL UCL-Netwiz@ISIE (uk) (01)387-7050
+ Peter Kirstein UCL PKirstein@ISIA (uk) (01)387-7050
+ Bill Tuck UCL UKSAT@ISIE (uk) (01)387-7050
+
+
+Postel [Page 6]
+