|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Text version]
Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 1000
Obsoletes: RFCs 084, 100, 160, 170, 200, 598, 699, 800, 899, 999J. Reynolds
J. Postel
ISI
August 1987
- STATUS OF THIS MEMO
- This RFC is a reference guide for the Internet community which summarizes of all the Request for Comments issued between April 1969 and March 1987. This guide also categorizes the RFCs by topic.
- INTRODUCTION
- This RFC Reference Guide is intended to provide a historical account by categorizing and summarizing of the Request for Comments numbers 1 through 999 issued between the years 1969-1987. These documents have been crossed referenced to indicate which RFCs are current, obsolete, or revised. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
- THE ORIGINS OF RFCS - by Stephen D. Crocker
- The DDN community now includes hundreds of nodes and thousands of users, but once it was all a gleam in Larry Roberts' eye. While much of the development proceeded according to a grand plan, the design of the protocols and the creation of the RFCs was largely accidental.
The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968 -- Remember Vietnam, flower children, etc? There had been prior experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems, but this was the first version to explore packet-switching on a grand scale. ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA" until 1972.) Unlike most of the ARPA/IPTO procurements of the day, this was a competitive procurement. The contract called for four IMPs to be delivered to UCLA, SRI, UCSB and The University of Utah. These sites were running a Sigma 7 with the SEX operating system, an SDS 940 with the Genie operating system, an IBM 360/75 with OS/MVT (or perhaps OS/MFT), and a DEC PDP-10 with the Tenex operating system. Options existed for additional nodes if the first experiments were successful. BBN won the procurement in December 1968, but that gets ahead of this story.
Part of the reason for selecting these four sites was these were existing ARPA computer science research contractors. The precise usage of the ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, and the research community could be counted on to take some initiative. To stimulate this process, a meeting was called during the summer with representatives from the selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro from SRI. If memory serves me correctly, Jeff Rulifson came from SRI, Ron Stoughton from UCSB, Steve Carr from Utah and I came from UCLA. (Apologies to anyone I've left out; records are inaccessible or lost at this point.) At this point we knew only that the network was coming, but the precise details weren't known.
That first meeting was seminal. We had lots of questions -- how IMPs and hosts would be connected, what hosts would say to each other, and what applications would be supported. No one had any answers, but the prospects seemed exciting. We found ourselves imagining all kinds of possibilities -- interactive graphics, cooperating processes, automatic data base query, electronic mail -- but no one knew where to begin. We weren't sure whether there was really room to think hard about these problems; surely someone from the east would be along by and by to bring the word. But we did come to one conclusion: We ought to meet again. Over the next several months, we managed to parlay that idea into a series of exchange meetings at each of our sites, thereby setting the most important precedent in protocol design.
The first few meetings were quite tenuous. We had no official charter. Most of us were graduate students and we expected that a professional crew would show up eventually to take over the problems we were dealing with. Without clear definition of what the host-IMP interface would look like, or even what functions the IMP would provide, we focused on exotic ideas. We envisioned the possibility of application specific protocols, with code downloaded to user sites, and we took a crack at designing a language to support this. The first version was known as DEL, for "Decode-Encode Language" and a later version was called NIL, for "Network Interchange Language." When the IMP contract was finally let and BBN provided some definite information on the host-IMP interface, all attention shifted to low-level matters and the ambitious ideas for automatic downloading of code evaporated. It was several years before ideas like remote procedure calls and typed objects reappeared.
In February of 1969 we met for the first time with BBN. I don't think any of us were prepared for that meeting. The BBN folks, led by Frank Heart, Bob Kahn, Severo Ornstein and Will Crowther, found themselves talking to a crew of graduate students they hadn't anticipated. And we found ourselves talking to people whose first concern was how to get bits to flow quickly and reliably but hadn't -- of course -- spent any time considering the thirty or forty layers of protocol above the link level. And while BBN didn't take over the protocol design process, we kept expecting that an official protocol design team would announce itself.
A month later, after a particularly delightful meeting in Utah, it became clear to us that we had better start writing down our
- discussions. We had accumulated a few notes on the design of DEL and other matters, and we decided to put them together in a set of notes. I remember having great fear that we would offend whomever the official protocol designers were, and I spent a sleepless night composing humble words for our notes. The basic ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was official. And to emphasize the point, I labeled the notes "Request for Comments." I never dreamed these notes would distributed through the very medium we were discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer's Apprentice!
Over the spring and summer of 1969 we grappled with the detailed problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision of the vast potential for intercomputer communication, designing usable protocols was another matter. A custom hardware interface and custom intrusion into the operating system was going to be required for anything we designed, and we anticipated serious difficulty at each of the sites. We looked for existing abstractions to use. It would have been convenient if we could have made the network simply look like a tape drive to each host, but we knew that wouldn't do.
It was clear we needed to support remote login for interactive use -- later known as Telnet -- and we needed to move files from machine to machine. We also knew that we needed a more fundamental point of view for building a larger array of protocols. Unfortunately, operating systems of that era tended to view themselves as the center of the universe; symmetric cooperation did not fit into the concepts currently available within these operating systems. And time was pressing: The first IMP was due to be delivered to UCLA September 1, 1969, and the rest were scheduled at monthly intervals.
At UCLA we scrambled to build a host-IMP interface. SDS, the builder of the Sigma 7, wanted many months and many dollars to do the job. Mike Wingfield, another grad student at UCLA, stepped in and offered to get interface built in six weeks for a few thousand dollars. He had a gorgeous, fully instrumented interface working in five and one half weeks. I was in charge of the software, and we were naturally running a bit late. September 1 was Labor Day, so I knew I had a couple of extra days to debug the software. Moreover, I had heard BBN was having some timing troubles with the software, so I had some hope they'd miss the ship date. And I figured that first some Honeywell people would install the hardware -- IMPs were built out of Honeywell 516s in those days -- and then BBN people would come in a few days later to shake down the software. An easy couple of weeks of grace.
BBN fixed their timing trouble, air shipped the IMP, and it arrived on our loading dock on Saturday, August 30. They arrived with the IMP, wheeled it into our computer room, plugged it in and the software restarted from where it had been when the plug was pulled in Cambridge. Still Saturday, August 30. Panic time at UCLA.
The second IMP was delivered to SRI at the beginning of October, and ARPA's interest was intense. Larry Roberts and Barry Wessler came by for a visit on November 21, and we actually managed to demonstrate a Telnet-like connection to SRI.
With the pressure to get something working and the general confusion as to how to achieve the high generality we all aspired to, we punted and defined the first set of protocols to include only Telnet and FTP functions. In particular, only asymmetric, user-server relationships were supported. In December 1969, we met with Larry Roberts in Utah, and suffered our first direct experience with "redirection". Larry made it abundantly clear that our first step was not big enough, and we went back to the drawing board. Over the next few months we designed a symmetric host-host protocol, and we defined an abstract implementation of the protocol known as the Network Control Program. ("NCP" later came to be used as the name for the protocol, but it originally meant the program within the operating system that managed connections. The protocol itself was known blandly only as the host-host protocol.) Along with the basic host-host protocol, we also envisioned a hierarchy of protocols, with Telnet, FTP and some splinter protocols as the first examples. If we had only consulted the ancient mystics, we would have seen immediately that seven layers were required.
The initial experiment had been declared an immediate success and the network continued to grow. More and more people started coming to meetings, and the Network Working Group began to take shape. Working Group meetings started to have 50 and 100 people in attendance instead of the half dozen we had had in 1968 and early 1969. We held one meeting in conjunction with the Spring Joint Computer Conference in Atlantic City in 1971. In October 1971 we all convened at MIT for a major protocol "fly-off". Representatives from each site were on hand, and everyone tried to log in to everyone else's site. With the exception of one site that was completely down, the matrix was almost completely filled in, and we had reached a major milestone in connectivity.
The rapid growth of the network and the working group also led to a large pile of RFCs. When the 100th RFC was in sight, Peggy Karp took on the task of indexing them. That seemed like a large task then, and we could have hardly anticipated seeing more than a 1000 RFCs several years later.
Where will it end? The network has the exceeded all estimates of its growth. It has been transformed, extended, cloned, renamed and reimplemented. I doubt if there is a single computer still on the network that was on it in 1971. But the RFCs march on. Maybe I'll write a few words for RFC 10,000.
- REQUEST FOR COMMENTS BY CATEGORIES
- The RFCs are categorized into several broad groups and within these groups are subdivided by topic. For example, the RFCs relating to file transfer are in 5 (Applications) c (File Transfer).
- 1. Administrative
997, 990, 960, 943, 923, 900, 870, 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, 717, 604, 503, 433, 349, 322, 317, 204, 179, 175, 167.991, 961, 944, 924, 901, 880, 840, 694, 661, 617, 582, 580, 552. 774 - Internet Protocol Handbook Table of Contents898 - Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting Notes 808, 805, 469 - Computer Mail Meeting Notes 910, 807 - Multimedia Mail Meeting Notes 585 - ARPANET Users Interest Working Group Meeting 549, 396, 282, 253 - Graphics Meeting Notes 371 - International Computer Communications Conference 327 - Data and File Transfer Workshop Notes 316 - Data Management Working Group Meeting Report 164, 131, 116, 108, 101, 082, 077, 066, 063, 037, 021 - Network Working Group Meeting828 - Data Communications: IFIP's International "Network" of Experts 631 - Call for Papers: International Meeting on Minicomputers and Data Communication 584 - Charter for ARPANET Users Interest Working Group 537 - Announcement of NGG Meeting 526 - Technical Meeting - Digital Image Processing Software Systems 504 - Workshop Announcement 483 - Cancellation of the Resource Notebook Framework Meeting 474, 314, 246, 232, 134 - Network Graphics Working Group471 - Announcement of a (Tentative) Workshop on Multi-Site Executive Programs 461 - Telnet Meeting Announcement 457 - TIPUG 456 - Memorandum 454 - File Transfer Protocol Meeting Announcement 453 - Meeting Announcement to Discuss a Network Mail System 374 - IMP System Announcement 359 - The Status of the Release of the New IMP System (2600) 343, 331 - IMP System Change Notification 324 - RJE Protocol Meeting 323 - Formation of Network Measurement Group (NMG) 320 - Workshop on Hard Copy Line Graphics 309 - Data and File Transfer Workshop Announcement 299 - Information Management System 295 - Report of the Protocol Workshop 291, 188, 173 - Data Management Meetings 245, 234, 207, 188, 173, 140, 116, 099, 087, 085, 075, 043, 035 - Network Working Group Meetings 222 - System Programmer's Workshop 212 - NWG Meeting on Network Usage 157 - Invitation to the Second Symposium on Problems in the Optimization of Data Communication Systems 149 - The Best Laid Plans... 147 - The Definition of a Socket 111 - Pressure from the Chairman 048 - A Possible Protocol Plateau 046 - ARPA Network Protocol Notes402, 363, 329, 303, 300, 211, 168, 155 - ARPA Network Mailing Lists 069 - Distribution List Change for MIT 052 - Updated Distribution List980 - Protocol Document Order Form 952, 810, 608 - Host Table Specification 945 - A DoD Statement on the NRC Report 902 - ARPA-Internet Protocol Policy 849 - Suggestions for Improved Host Table Distribution 678 - Document Formats 602 - The Stockings Were Hung by the Chimney With Care 115 - Some Network Information Center Policies on Handling Documents 053 - An Official Protocol Mechanism999, 899, 800, 699 - Requests for Comments Summary 825 - Request for Comments on Requests for Comments 629 - Scenario for Using the Network Journal 628 - Status of RFC Numbers and a Note on Pre-assigned Journal Numbers 598, 200, 170, 160, 100, 084 - RFC Index829 - Packet Satellite Technology Reference Sources 290 - Computer Network and Data Sharing: A Bibliography 243 - Network and Data Sharing Bibliography637 - Change of Network Address for SU-DSL 634 - Change in Network Address for Haskins Lab 616 - Latest Network Maps 609 - Statement of Upcoming Move of NIC/NLS Service 590 - MULTICS Address Change 588 - London Node is Now Up 551 - NYU, ANL, and LBL Joining the Net 544 - Locating On-Line Documentation at SRI-ARC 543 - Network Journal Submission and Delivery 518 - ARPANET Accounts 511 - Enterprise Phone Service to NIC From ARPANET Sites 510 - Request for Network Mailbox Addresses 432 - Network Logical Map 423, 389 - UCLA Campus Computing Network Liaison Staff for APRA Network 421 - A Software Consulting Service for Network Users 419 - MIT-DMS on Vacation 416 - The ARC System will be Unavailable for Use During Thanksgiving Week 405 - Correction to RFC 404 404 - Host Address Changes Involving Rand and ISI 403 - Desirability of a Network 1108 Service 386 - Letter to TIP Users - 2 384 - Official Site IDENTS for Organizations in the ARPA Networks 381 - Three Aids to Improved Network Operation 356 - ARPA Network Control Center 334 - Network Use on May 8 305 - Unknown Host Numbers 301 - BBN IMP No. 5 and NCC Schedule for March 4, 1972 276 - NIC Course 249 - Coordination of Equipment and Supplies Purchase223 - Network Information Center Schedule for Network Users 185 - NIC Distribution of Manuals and Handbooks 154 - Exposition Style 136 - Host Accounting and Administrative Procedures 118 - Information Required for Each Service Available to the Network 095 - Distribution of NWG/RFC's Through the NIC 016 - MIT- 2. ARPANET Host to Host Protocol
801 - NCP/TCP Transition Plan 773 - Comments on NCP/TCP Mail Service Transition Strategy 714 - A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network 689 - Tenex NCP Finite State Machine for Connections 663 - A Lost Message Detection and Recovery Protocol 636 - TIP/TENEX Reliability Improvements 635 - An Assessment of ARPANET Protocols 534, 516, 512 - Lost Message Detection 492, 467 - Proposed Change to Host-Host Protocol Resynchronization of Connection Status 489 - Comment on Resynchronization of Connection Status Proposal 425 - "But my NCP Costs $500 a day..." 210 - Improvement of Flow Control 197 - Initial Connection Protocol - Revised 176 - Comments on Byte Size for Connections 165 - A Proferred Official Initial Connection Protocol 147 - The Definition of a Socket 142 - Time-out Mechanism in the Host-Host Protocol 132, 124, 107, 102 - Output of the Host-Host Protocol Glitch Cleaning Committee 129 - A Request for Comments on Socket Name Structure 128 - Bytes 117 - Some Comments on the Official Protocol 072 - Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network Protocol 068 - Comments on Memory Allocation Control Commands (CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and RFNM 065 - Comments on Host-Host Protocol Document Number 1 060 - A Simplified NCP Protocol 059 - Flow Control-Fixed Versus Demand Allocation 058 - Logical Message Synchronization 057, 054 - An Official Protocol Proffering 056 - Third Level Protocol 055 - A Prototypical Implementation of the NCP 050, 049, 048, 047, 046, 045, 044, 040, 039, 038, 036, 033 - New Host-Host Protocol042 - Message Data Types 023 - Transmission of Multiple Control Messages 022 - Host-Host Control Message Formats 018 - Comments Re: Host-Host control link 015 - Network Subsystem for Time Sharing Hosts 011 - Implementation of the Host-Host Software Procedures in GORDO 009, 001 - Host Software 008 - ARPA Network Functional Specifications 005 - DEL 002 - Links202 - Possible Deadlock in ICP 197 - Initial Connection Protocol - Revised 161 - A Solution to the Race Condition in the ICP 151, 148, 143, 127, 123 - A Proferred Official ICP 150 - The Use of IPC Facilities 145 - Initial Connection Protocol Control Commands 093 - Initial Connection Protocol 080 - Protocol and Data Formats 066 - 3rd Level Ideas and Other Noise- 3. Internet Level
815 - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms 791, 760 - Internet Protocol (IP) 781 - A Specification of the Internet Protocol IP Timestamp Option985 - Requirements for Internet Gateways 975 - Autonomous Confederations 970 - On Packet Switches With Infinite Storage 911 - EGP Gateway under Berkeley Unix 904, 890, 888, 827 - Exterior Gateway Protocol 875 - Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalumps 823 - Gateway Gateway Protocol986 - Working Draft - Guidelines for the Use of Internet-IP Addressing in the ISO Connectionless-Mode Network 981 - An Experimental Multiple-Path Routing Algorithm 963 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Internet Protocol 950 - Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure 947 - Multi-Network Broadcasting Within the Internet 940, 917, 925, 932, 936, 922 - Internet Subnets Protocol 925, 917, 826 - Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol 919, 922 - Broadcasting Internet Datagrams 891 - DCN Local-Network Protocols 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model 831 - Backup Access to the European Side of SATNET 817 - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation 816 - Fault Isolation and Recovery 814 - Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes 796 - Address Mapping 795 - Service Mappings 730 - Extensible Field Addressing- 4. Host Level
983 - ISO Transport Services on Top of the TCP 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol 896 - Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks 889 - Internet Delay Experiments 879 - The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics 872 - TCP-ON-A-LAN 817 - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation 816 - Fault Isolation and Recovery 814 - Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes 794 - Pre-Emption 793, 761, 675 - Transmission Control Protocol 721 - Out of Band Control Signals in a Host to Host Protocol 700 - A Protocol Experiment955 - Towards a Transport Service for Transaction Processing Applications938 - Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Functional and Interface Specification 908 - Reliable Data Protocol 722 - Thoughts on Interactions in Distributed Services 713 - MSDTP -- Message Services Data Transmission Protocol 712 - A Distributed Capability Computing System DCCS 708 - Elements of a Distributed Programming System 707 - A High-Level Framework for Network-Based Resource Sharing 684 - A Commentary on Procedure Calling as A Network Protocol 677 - The Maintenance of Duplicate Databases 674 - Procedure Call Documents--Version 2 672 - A Multi-Site Data Collection Facility 671 - A Note on Reconnection Protocol 645 - Network Standard Data Specification Syntax 615 - Proposed Network Standard Data Pathname Syntax 610 - Further Datalanguage Design Concepts 592 - Some Thoughts on System Design to Facilitate Resource Sharing 578 - Using MIT-MATHLAB MACSYMA From MIT-DMS Muddle - An Experiment in Automated Resource Sharing 515 - Specifications for Datalanguage, Version 0/9 500 - The Integration of Data Management Systems on a Computer Network 441 - Inter-Entity Communication - An Experiment 437 - Data Reconfiguration Service at UCSB 203 - Achieving Reliable Communication 076 - Connection-by-Name: User-Oriented Protocol 062 - A System for Interprocess Communication in a Resource Sharing Computer Network 061 - A Note on Interprocess Communication in a Resource Sharing Computer Network 051 - Proposal for a Network Interchange Language 031 - Binary Message Forms in Computer Networks 005 - DEL 001 - Host Software998, 969 - NETBLT: A Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 988 - Host Extensions for IP Multicasting 979 - PSN End-to-End Functional Specification 966 - A Multicast Extension to the Internet Protocol 869 - Host Monitoring Protocol 741 - Specifications for the Network Voice Protocol NVP 643 - Cross Net Debugger 162 - NETBUGGER3- 5. Application Level
854, 764 - Telnet Protocol Specification 818 - The Remote User Telnet Service 801 - NCP/TCP Transition Plan 782 - A Virtual Terminal Management Model 764 - Telnet Protocol Specification 728 - A Minor Pitfall in the Telnet Protocol 688 - Tentative Schedule for the New Telnet Implementation for the TIP 681 - Network Unix 600 - Interfacing an Illinois Plasma Terminal to the ARPANET 596 - Second Thoughts on Telnet Go-Ahead 595 - Some Thoughts in Defense of the Telnet Go-Ahead 593 - Telnet and FTP Implementation Schedule Change 576 - Proposal for Modifying Linking 570 - Experimental Input Mapping Between NVT ASCII and UCSB Online System 562 - Modifications to the Telnet Specification 559 - Comments on the New Telnet Protocol and Its Implementation 529 - A Note on Protocol Synch Sequences 513 - Comments on the New Telnet Specifications 495 - Telnet Protocol Specification 466 - Telnet Logger/Server for Host LL-67 461 - Telnet Meeting Announcement 452 - Telnet Command at Host LL 435 - Telnet Issues 426 - Reconnection Protocol 393 - Comments on Telnet Protocol Changes 377 - Using TSO Via ARPA Network Virtual Terminal 357 - An Echoing Strategy for Satellite Links 355, 346 - Satellite Considerations 340 - Proposed Telnet Changes 339 - MLTNET - A "Multi-Telnet" Subsystem for TENEX 328 - Suggested Telnet Protocol Changes 318 - Ad Hoc Telnet Protocol 216 - Telnet Access to UCSB's On-Line System 215 - NCP, ICP, and Telnet: The Terminal IMP Implementation 206 - A User Telnet Description of an Initial Implementation 205 - NETCRT - A Character Display Protocol 190 - DEC PDP-10 - IMLAC Communication System 158 - Proposed Telnet Protocol 139 - Discussion of Telnet Protocol 137 - Telnet Protocol - A Proposed Document 135, 110 - Conventions for Using an IBM 2741 Terminal as a User Console for Access to Network Server Hosts103 - Implementation of Interrupt Keys 097 - A First Cut at a Proposed Telnet Protocol 091 - A Proposed User-User Protocol 015 - Network Subsystem for Time Sharing Hosts946 - Telnet Terminal Location Number Option 933 - Output Marking Telnet Option 930 - Telnet Terminal Type Option 927 - TACACS User Identification Telnet Option 885 - Telnet End of Record Option 884 - Telnet Terminal Type Option 861 - Telnet Extended Options - List Option 860 - Telnet Timing Mark Option 859 - Telnet Status Option 858 - Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option 857 - Telnet Echo Option 856 - Telnet Binary Transmission 855 - Telnet Option Specifications 854 - Telnet Protocol Specifications 779 - Telnet Send-Location Option 749 - Telnet SUPDUP-OUTPUT Option 748 - Telnet Randomly-Lose Option 736 - Telnet SUPDUP Option 735 - Revised Telnet Byte Macro Option 734 - SUPDUP Protocol 747 - Recent Extensions to the SUPDUP Protocol 746 - The SUPDUP Graphics Extension 732 - Telnet Data Entry Terminal Option 731 - Telnet Data Entry Terminal Option 729 - Telnet Byte Macro Option 727 - Telnet Logout Option 726 - Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option 719 - Discussion on RCTE 718 - Comments on RCTE from the Tenex Implementation Experience 703, 702, 701 - Survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers 698 - Telnet Extended ASCII Option 679 - February, 1975, Survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers 669 - November 1974, Survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers 659 - Announcing Additional Telnet Options 658 - Telnet Output Line Feed Disposition 657 - Telnet Output Vertical Tab Disposition Option 656 - Telnet Output Vertical Tab Stops Option 655 - Telnet Output Form Feed Disposition Option 654 - Telnet Output Horizontal Tab Disposition Option 653 - Telnet Output Horizontal Tab Stops Option 652 - Telnet Output Carriage Return Disposition Option 651 - Revised Telnet Status Option587 - Announcing New Telnet Options 581 - Corrections to RFC 560 - Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option 563 - Comments on the RCTE Telnet Option 560 - Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option987 - Mapping Between X.400 and RFC 822 959, 542, 354, 265, 172, 114 - The File Transfer Protocol 949 - FTP Unique-Named Store Command 913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol 906 - Bootstrap Loading Using TFTP 822 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages 821, 788 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 783, 768, 764 - The TFTP Protocol Revision 2 775 - Directory Oriented FTP Commands 743 - FTP Extension: XRSQ/XRCP 737 - FTP Extension: XSEN 697 - CWD Command of FTP 691 - One More Try on the FTP 686 - Leaving Well Enough Alone 683 - FTPSRV -- Tenex Extension for Paged Files 678 - Document File Format Standards 662 - Performance Improvement in ARPANET File Transfers from Multics 640 - Revised FTP Reply Codes 630 - FTP Error Code Usage for More Reliable Mail Service 624 - Comments on the File Transfer Protocol 614 - Response to RFC 607 - Comments on the FTP 607 - NIC-21255 Comments on the File Transfer Protocol 573 - Data and File Transfer - Some Measurement Results 571 - Tenex FTP Problem 535 - Comments on File Access Protocol 532 - The UCSD-CC Server-FTP Facility 520 - Memo to FTP Group (Proposal for File Access Protocol) 506 - An FTP Command Naming Problem 505 - Two Solutions to a File Transfer Access Problem 501 - Un-Muddling "Free File Transfer" 487 - Host-Dependent FTP Parameters 486 - Data Transfer Revisited 480 - Host-Dependent FTP Parameters 479 - Use of FTP by the NIC Journal 478 - FTP Server-Server Interaction - II 475 - FTP and the Network Mail System 468 - FTP Data Compression 463 - FTP Comments and Response to RFC 430 458 - Mail Retrieval via FTP454 - File Transfer Protocol - Meeting Announcement and a New Proposed Document 448 - Print Files in FTP 438 - FTP Server-Server Interaction 430 - Comments on File Transfer Protocol 418 - Server File Transfer Under TSS/360 at NASA/Ames Research Center 414 - File Transfer Protocols (FTP): Status and Further Comments 412 - User FTP Documentation 385 - Comments on the File Transfer Protocol (RFC 354) 310 - Another Look at Data and File Transfer Protocols 294 - The Use of "Set Data Type" Transaction in the File Transfer Protocol 281 - A Suggested Addition to File Transfer Protocol 269 - Some Experience with File Transfer 264, 171 - The Data Transfer Protocol 250 - Some Thoughts on File Transfer 242 - Data Descriptive Language for Shared Data 238 - Comments on DTP and FTP Protocols 163 - Data Transfer Protocols 141 - Comments on RFC 114 (A File Transfer Protocol) 133 - File Transfer and Error Recovery974 - Mail Routing and the Domain System 973 - Domain System Changes and Observations 953, 811, 810 - HOSTNAME Protocol 921, 897 - Domain Name System Implementation Schedule 920 - Domain Requirements 883 - Domain Names - Implementation and Specification 882 - Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities 881 - The Domain Names Plan and Schedule 830 - A Distributed System for Internet Name Service 819 - The Domain Naming Convention for Internet User Applications 799 - Internet Name Domains 756 - The NIC Name Server -- A Datagram-Based Information Utility 752 - A Universal Host Table994, 983 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System 977 - Network News Transfer Protocol 976 - UUCP Mail Interchange Format Standard 974 - Mail Routing and the Domain System 934 - Proposed Standard for Message Encapsulation915 - Network Mail Path Service 886 - Proposed Standard for Message Header Munging 850 - Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages 841 - Specification for Message Format for Computer Based Message Systems 822 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages 821 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 806 - Specification for Message Format for Computer Based Message Systems 780, 772 - Mail Transfer Protocol 786 - Mail Transfer Protocol - ISI TOPS-20 MTP-NIMAIL Interface 785 - Mail Transfer Protocol - ISI TOPS-20 File Definitions 784 - Mail Transfer Protocol - ISI TOPS-20 Implementation 771 - Mail Transition Plan 763 - Role Mailboxes 757 - A Suggested Solution to the Naming, Addressing, and Delivery Problem for ARPANET Message Systems 754 - Out-of-Net Host Addresses for Mail 753 - Internet Message Protocol 751 - Survey of FTP Mail and MLFL 733 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages 724 - Proposed Official Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Messages 720 - Address Specification Syntax for Network Mail 706 - On the Junk Mail Problem 680 - Message Transmission Protocol 644 - On the Problem of Signature Authentication for Network Mail 577 - Mail Priority 574 - Announcement of a Mail Facility at UCSB 561 - Standardizing Network Mail Headers 555 - Responses to Critiques of the Proposed Mail Protocol 539, 524 - A Proposed Mail Protocol 498 - On Mail Service to CCN 491 - What is "Free"? 475 - On FTP and the Network Mail System 458 - Mail Retrieval via FTP 333 - A Proposed Experiment with a Message Switching Protocol 278, 224, 221, 196 - A Mail Box Protocol809 - UCL Facsimile System 804 - Facsimile Formats 803 - Dacom 450/500 Facsimile Date Transcoding 798 - Decoding Facsimile Data From the Rapicom 450 797 - Bitmap Formats 769 - Rapicom 450 Facimile File Format965 - A Format for a Graphical Communication Protocol 553 - Draft Design for a Text/Graphics Protocol 493 - Graphics Protocol 401 - Conversion of NGP-0 Coordinates to Device Specific Coordinates 398 - UCSB Online Graphics 387 - Some Experiences in Implementing Network Graphics Protocol Level 0 351 - Information Form for the ARPANET Graphics Resources Notebook 336 - Level 0 Graphics Input Protocol 296 - DS-1 Display System 292 - Graphics Protocol - Level 0 only 285 - Network Graphics 268 - Graphics Facilities Information 199 - Suggestions for a Network Data-Telnet Graphics Protocol 192 - Some Factors Which a Network Graphics Protocol Must Consider 191 - Graphics Implementation and Conceptualization at ARC 186 - A Network Graphics Loader 184 - Proposed Graphic Display Modes 181, 177 - A Device Independent Graphical Display Description 178 - Network Graphics Attention Handling 125, 086 - Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a Data Stream to Control Graphics Display 094 - Some Thoughts on Network Graphics304 - A Data Management System Proposal for the ARPA Network 195 - Data Computers - Data Descriptions and Access Language 194 - The Data Reconfiguration Service - Compiler/Interpreter Implementation Notes 166 - Data Reconfiguration Service - An Implementation Specification 144 - Data Sharing on Computer Networks 138 - Status Report on Proposed Data Reconfiguration Service 083 - Language-Machine for Data Reconfiguration740, 599, 589, 325, 189, 088 - CCN Network Remote Job Entry Program - NETRJS 725 - An RJE Protocol for a Resource Sharing Network 499 - Harvard's Network RJE 490 - Surrogate RJS for UCLA-CCN 477, 436 - Remote Job Service at UCSB407 - Remote Job Entry 368 - Comments on "Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol" 360 - Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol 338 - EBCDIC/ASCII Mapping for Network RJE 307 - Using Network Remote Job Entry 283 - NETRJT - Remote Job Service Protocol for TIPS 105 - Network Specification for Remote Job Entry and Remote Job Output Retrieval at UCSB958, 957, 956 - Network Time Protocol 868 - Time Server Protocol 867 - Daytime Protocol 778 - DCNET Time Server Protocol 738 - Time Server 685 - Response Time in Cross-network Debugging 034 - Some Brief Preliminary Notes on the ARC Clock 032 - Some Thoughts on SRI's Proposed Real Time Clock 028 - Time Standards978 - Voice File Interchange Protocol (VFIP) 972 - Password Generator Protocol 954, 812 - Whois Protocol 951 - Bootstrap Protocol 937, 918 - Post Office Protocol 931, 912 - Authentication Service 913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol 909 - Loader Debugger Protocol 891 - DCN Local Net Protocol 887 - Resource Location Protocol 866 - Active Users Protocol 865 - Quote of the Day Protocol 864 - Character Generator Protocol 863, 361, 348 - Discard Protocol 862, 361, 347 - Echo Protocol 821, 822 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 783 - Trivial File Transfer Protocol 767 - Document Formats 759 - Internet Message Protocol 742 - Finger Protocol 734 - SUPDUP Protocol 726 - Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option 666 - Specification of the Unified User-Level Protocol 621 - NIC User Directories at SRI-ARC 569 - Network Standard Text Editor 470 - Change in Socket for TIP News Facility451 - Tentative Proposal for a Unified User Level Protocol 098, 079 - Logger Protocol 029 - Note in Response to Bill English's Request for Comments- 6. Program Documentation
496 - A TNLS Quick Reference Card is Available 494 - Availability of MIX and MIXAL in the Network 488 - NLS Classes at Network Sites 485 - MIS and MIXAL at UCSB 431 - Update on SMFS Login and Logout 411 - New Multics Network Software Features 409 - TENEX Interface to UCSB's Simple-Minded File System 399 - SMFS Login and Logout 390 - TSO Scenario Batch Compilation and Foreground Execution 382 - Mathematical Software on the ARPA Network 379 - Using TSO at CCN 373 - Arbitrary Character Sets 350 - User Accounts for UCSB On-Line System 345 - Interest Mixed Integer Programming (MPSX on 360/91 at CCN) 321 - CBI Networking Activity at MITRE 317 - Official Host-Host Protocol Modification: Assigned Link Numbers 311 - New Console Attachments to the UCSB Host 251 - Weather Data 223 - Network Information Center Schedule for Network Users 217 - Specification Changes for OLS, RJE/RJOR, and SMFS 174 - UCLA-Computer Science Graphics Overview 122 - Network Specifications for UCSB's Simple-Minded File System 121 - Network On-Line Operators 120 - Network PL1 Subprograms 119 - Network FORTRAN Subprograms 074 - Specifications for Network Use of the UCSB On-Line System- 7. Network Specific
878, 851, 802 - The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol 852 - The ARPANET Short Blocking Feature 789 - Vulnerabilities of Network Control Protocols: An Example 716 - Interim Revision to Appendix F of BBN 1822 704 - IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol Change 696 - Comments on the IMP/HOST and HOST/IMP Protocol Changes 695 - Official Change in Host-Host Protocol692 - Comments on IMP/Host Protocol Changes 690 - Comments on the Proposed Host/IMP Protocol Changes 687 - IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol 667 - BBN Host Ports 660 - Some Changes to the IMP and the IMP/Host Interface 642 - Ready Line Philosophy and Implementation 638, 633 - IMP/TIP Preventive Maintenance Schedule 632 - Throughput Degradation for Single Packet Message 627 - ASCII Text File of Hostnames 626 - On a possible Lockup Condition in IMP Subnet due to Message Sequencing 625 - On Line Hostnames Service 623 - Comments on On-line Host Name Service 622 - Scheduling IMP/TIP Down Time 620 - Request for Monitor Host Table Updates 619 - Mean Round-Trip Times in the ARPANET 613 - Network Connectivity: A Response to RFC 603 611 - Two Changes to the IMP/Host Protocol 606 - Host Names On-Line 594 - Speedup of Host-IMP Interface 591 - Addition to the Very Distant Host Specification 568, 567 - Cross-Country Network Bandwidth 548 - Hosts Using the IMP Going Down Message Specification 547 - Change to the Very Distant Host Specification 533 - Message-ID Numbers 534 - Lost Message Detection 528 - Software Checksumming in the IMP and Network Reliability 521 - Restricted Use of IMP DDT 508 - Real-Time Data Transmission on the ARPANET 476, 434 - IMP/TIP Memory Retrofit Schedules 449, 442 - The Current Flow-Control Scheme for IMPSYS 447, 445 - IMP/TIP Preventive Maintenance Schedule 417 - LINK Usage Violation 410 - Removal of the 30-second Delay When Hosts Come Up 406 - Scheduled IMP Software Releases 395 - Switch Settings on IMPs and TIPs 394 - Two Proposed Changes to the IMP-HOST Protocol 369 - Evaluation of ARPANET Services (January through March, 1972) 335 - New Interface-IMP/360 312 - Proposed Change in IMP-to-Host Protocol 297 - TIP Message Buffers 280 - A Draft Set of Host Names 274 - Establishing a Local Guide for Network Usage 271 - IMP System Change Notification 270 - Correction to the BBN Report No. 1822 263 - "Very Distant" Host Interface 254 - Scenarios for Using ARPANET Computers 247 - Proffered Set of Standard Host Names241 - Connecting Computers to NLC Ports 239 - Host Mnemonics Proposed in RFC 226 237 - The NIC's View of Standard Host Names 236 - Standard Host Names 233 - Standardization of Host Call Letters 230 - Toward Reliable Operation of Minicomputer-based Terminals on a TIP 229 - Standard Host Names 228 - Clarification 226 - Standardization of Host Mnemonics 218 - Changing the IMP Status Reporting 213 - IMP System Change Notification 209 - Host/IMP Interface Documentation 208 - Address Tables 073, 067 - Proposed Change to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate Marking 071 - Reallocation in Case of Input Error 070 - A Note On Padding 064 - Getting Rid of Marking 041 - IMP/IMP Teletype Communication 025 - No High Link Numbers 019 - Two Protocol Suggestions to Reduce Congestion at Swap-Bound Nodes 017a, 017 - Some Questions Re: HOST-IMP Protocol 012 - IMP-HOST Interface Flow Diagrams 007 - HOST-IMP Interface 006 - Conversation with Bob Kahn948 - Two Methods for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802.3 Networks 907 - Host Access Protocol 903 - A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol 895 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Experimental Ethernet Networks 894 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks 893 - Trailer Encapsulations 891 - Internet Protocol on DC Networks 877 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over Public Data Networks 826 - Address Resolution Protocol 796 - Address Mappings 795 - Service Mappings935 - Reliable Link Layer Protocols 916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 914 - Thinwire Protocol 824 - The Cronus Virtual Local Network- 8. Measurement
573 - Data and File Transfer - Some Measurement Results 557 - Revelations in Network Host Measurements 546 - Tenex Load Averages for July 1973 462 - Responding to User Needs 415 - TENEX Bandwidth 392 - Measurement of Host Costs for Transmitting Network Data 352 - TIP Site Information Form 308 - ARPANET Host Availability Data 286 - Network Library Information System 274 - Establishing a Local Guide for Network Usage 214, 193 - Network Checkout 198 - Site Certification - Lincoln Labs 182 - Compilation of List of Revelant Site Reports 180 - File System Questionnaire 156 - Status of the Illinois Site (Response to RFC 116) 153 - SRI ARC-NIC Status 152 - SRI Artificial Intelligence Status Report 126 - Ames Graphics Facilities at Ames Research Center 112 - User/Server Site Protocol Network HOST Questionnaire 104 - Link 191 106 - USER/SERVER Site Protocol Network Host Questionnaire971 - A Survey of Data Representation Standards 876 - Survey of SMTP Implementations 848 - Who Provides the "Little" TCP Services? 847 - Summary of Smallberg Surveys 844 - Who Talks ICMP, too? Survey of 18 February 1983 846, 845, 843, 842, 839, 838, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832 - Who Talks TCP? 787 - Connectionless Data Transmission Survey/Tutorial 703, 702, 701, 679, 669 - Survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers 565 - Storing Network Survey Data at the Datacomputer 545 - Of What Quality be the UCSB Resource Evaluators? 530 - A Report on the SURVEY Project 523 - SURVEY is in Operation Again 519 - Resource Evaluation514 - Network Make-Work 464 - Resource Notebook Framework 460 - NCP Survey 459 - Network Questionnaire 450 - Multics Sampling Timeout Change 446 - Proposal to Consider a Network Program Resource Notebook 096 - An Interactive Network Experiment to Study Modes of Access to the Network Information Center 090 - CCN as a Network Service Center 081 - Request for Reference Information 078 - NCP Status Report: UCSB/Rand996 - Statistics Server 618 - A Few Observations on NCP Statistics 612, 601, 586, 579, 566, 556, 538, 522, 509, 497, 482, 455, 443, 422, 413, 400, 391, 378 - Traffic Statistics 603, 597, 376, 370, 367, 366, 362, 352, 344, 342, 332, 330, 326, 319, 315, 306, 298, 293, 288, 287, 267, 266 - Network Host Status 550 - NIC NCP Experiment 388 - NCP Statistics 255, 252, 240, 235 - Site Status- 9. Network Experience and Demonstrations
968 - 'Twas the Night Before Start-up 967 - All Victims Together 573 - Data and File Transfer - Some Measurement Results 527 - ARPAWOCKY 525 - MIT-Mathlab Meets UCSB-OLS 439 - PARRY Encounters the Doctor 420 - CCA ICC Weather Demo 372 - Notes on a Conversation with Bob Kahn on the ICCC 364 - Serving Remote Users on the ARPANET 302 - Excercising the ARPANET 231 - Service Center Standards for Remote Usage - A User's View 227 - Data Transfer Rates (RAND/UCLA) 113 - Network Activity Report: UCSB and Rand 089 - Some Historic Moments in Networking 004 - Network Timetable- 10. Site Documentation
- 11. Other Standards
570 - Experimental Input Mapping Between NVT ASCII and UCSB Online System 183 - The EBCDIC Codes and Their Mapping to ASCII 020 - ASCII Format for Network Interchange987 - Mapping Between X.400 and RFC 822 874 - A Critique of X.25942 - Transport Protocols for Department of Defense Data Networks 939 - Executive Summary of the NRC Report on Transport Protocols for Department of Defense Data Networks995 - End System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol for Use in Conjunction with ISO 8473 994 - Final Text of DIS 8473, Protocol for Providing the Connectionless Mode Network Service 982 - Guidelines for the Specification of the Structure of the Domain Specific Part (DSP) of the ISO Standard NSAP Address 941 - Addendum to the Network Service Definition Covering Network Layer Addressing 926 - Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-Mode Network Services 905 - ISO Transport Protocol Specification (ISO DP 8073) 892 - ISO Transport Protocol 873 - The Illusion of Vendor Support- 12. Never Issued
014, 026, 092, 159, 201, 220, 244, 248, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 272, 275, 277, 279, 284, 337, 341, 358, 375, 380, 383, 397, 424, 427, 428, 444, 465, 481, 484, 502, 507, 517, 536, 540, 541, 554, 558, 564, 572, 575, 583, 605, 639, 641, 646, 648, 649, 650, 664, 665, 668, 670, 673, 676, 682, 693, 709, 710, 711, 715, 723, 853.- REQUEST FOR COMMENTS LIST WITH ABSTRACTS
998 Lambert Mar 87 NETBLT: A Bulk Data Transfer ProtocolThis document is a description of and a specification for the NETBLT protocol. It is a revision of the specification published in RFC-969. NETBLT (NETwork BLock Transfer) is a transport level protocol intended for the rapid transfer of a large quantity of data between computers. It provides a transfer that is reliable and flow controlled, and is designed to provide maximum throughput over a wide variety of networks. Although NETBLT currently runs on top of the Internet Protocol (IP), it should be able to operate on top of any datagram protocol similar in function to IP.This document is published for discussion and comment, and does not constitute a standard. The proposal may change and certain parts of the protocol have not yet been specified; implementation of this document is therefore not advised.This memo is an official status report on the network numbers used in the Internet community. As of 1-Mar-87 the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International has assumed responsibility for assignment of Network Numbers and Autonomous System Numbers. This RFC documents the current assignments of these numbers at the time of this transfer of responsibility.This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts and gateways on the DARPA Internet that choose to implement a remote statistics monitoring facility may use this protocol to send statistics data upon request to a monitoring center or debugging host.995 ANSI Apr 86 End System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol for use in conjunction with ISO 8473.to facilitate the interconnection of open systems. The set of standards covers the services and protocols required to achieve such interconnection.This Protocol is positioned with respect to other related standards by the layers defined in the Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection (ISO 7498) and by the structure defined in the Internal Organization of the Network Layer (DIS 8648). In particular, it is a protocol of the Network Layer. This Protocol permits End Systems and Intermediate Systems to exchange configuration and routing information to facilitate the operation of the routing and relaying functions of the Network Layer.994 ANSI Mar 86 Final Text of DIS 8473, Protocol for Providing the Connectionless Mode Network ServiceThis Protocol Standard is one of a set of International Standards produced to facilitate the interconnection of open systems. The set of standards covers the services and protocols required to achieve such interconnection.This Protocol Standard is positioned with respect to other related standards by the layers defined in the Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection (ISO 7498). In particular, it is a protocol of the Network Layer. This Protocol may be used between network-entities in end systems or in Network Layer relay systems (or both). It provides the Connectionless-mode Network Service as defined in Addendum 1 to the Network Service Definition Covering Connectionless-mode Transmission (ISO 8348/AD1).993 Clark Dec 86 PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal ComputersThis document is a discussion of the PCMAIL workstation-based distributed mail system. It is a revision of the design published in NIC RFC 984. The revision is based on discussion and comments from a variety of sources, as well as further research into the design of interactive PCMAIL clients and the use of client code on machines other than IBM PCs. As this design may change, implementation of this document is not advised.992 Birman Nov 86 On Communication Support for Fault-Tolerant Process GroupsThis memo describes a collection of multicast communication primitives integrated with a mechanism for handling process failure and recovery. These primitives facilitate the implementation of fault-tolerant process groups, which can be usedto provide distributed services in an environment subject to non-malicious crash failures.Here, we argue that the form of "best effort" reliability provided by host groups may not address the requirements of those researchers who are building fault tolerant software. Our basic premise is that reliable handling of failures, recoveries, and dynamic process migration are important aspects of programming in distributed environments, and that communication support that provides unpredictable behavior in the presence of such events places an unacceptable burden of complexity on higher level application software. This complexity does not arise when using the fault-tolerant process group alternative.This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols used in the Internet. Comments indicate any revisions or changes planned. This memo is an official status report on the numbers used in protocols in the ARPA-Internet community. This memo obsoletes RFCs 961, 944, 924, 901, 880, 840, 694, 661, 617, 582, 580, 552.This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This memo is an official status report on the numbers used in protocols in the ARPA-Internet community. This memo obsoletes RFCs 960, 943, 923, 900, 870, 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, 717, 604, 503, 433, 349, 322, 317, 204, 179, 175, 167.989 Linn Feb 87 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encipherment and Authentication ProceduresThis RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the Internet community and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This RFC is the outgrowth of a series of IAB Privacy Task Force meetings and of internal working papers distributed for those meetings. This RFC defines message encipherment and authentication procedures, as the initial phase of an effort to provide privacy enhancement services for electronic mail transfer in the Internet. It is intended that the procedures defined here be compatible with a wide range of key management approaches, including both conventional (symmetric) and public-key (asymmetric) approaches for encryption of data encrypting keys.Use of conventional cryptography for message text encryption and/or authentication is anticipated.Privacy enhancement services (confidentiality, authentication, and message integrity assurance) are offered through the use of end-to- end cryptography between originator and recipient User Agent processes, with no special processing requirements imposed on the Message Transfer System at endpoints or at intermediate relay sites. This approach allows privacy enhancement facilities to be incorporated on a site-by-site or user-by-user basis without impact on other Internet entities. Interoperability among heterogeneous components and mail transport facilities is supported.This memo specifies the extensions required of a host implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP) to support internetwork multicasting. This specification supersedes that given in RFC 966, and constitutes a proposed protocol standard for IP multicasting in the ARPA-Internet. The reader is directed to RFC 966 for a discussion of the motivation and rationale behind the multicasting extension specified here.The X.400 series of protocols have been defined by CCITT to provide an Interpersonal Messaging Service (IPMS), making use of a store and forward Message Transfer Service. It is expected that this standard will be implemented very widely. This document describes a set of mappings which will enable interworking between systems operating the X.400 protocols and systems using RFC 822 mail protocol or protocols derived from RFC 822. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.986 Callon Jun 86 Working Draft -- Guidelines for the Use of Internet-IP addressing in the ISO Connectionless-Mode Network ProtocolThis RFC suggests a method to allow the existing IP addressing, including the IP protocol field, to be used for the ISO Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP). This is a draft solution to one of the problems inherent in the use of "ISO-grams" in the DoD Internet. Related issues will be discussed in subsequent RFCs. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.This RFC summarizes the requirements for gateways to be used on networks supporting the DARPA Internet protocols. While it applies specifically to the National Science Foundation research programs, the requirements are stated in a general context and are believed applicable throughout the Internet community. The purpose of this document is to present guidance for vendors offering products that might be used or adapted for use in an Internet application. It enumerates the protocols required and gives references to RFCs and other documents describing the current specification. Suggestions and comments on this document are welcomed and can be sent to Dave Mills (Mills@D.ISI.EDU) or Dave Farber (Farber@HUEY.UDEL.EDU).984 Clark May 86 PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal ComputersThis document is a preliminary discussion of the design of a personal-computer-based distributed mail system. Pcmail is a distributed mail system that provides mail service to an arbitrary number of users, each of which owns one or more personal computers (PCs). The system is divided into two halves. The first consists of a single entity called the "repository". The repository is a storage center for incoming mail. Mail for a Pcmail user can arrive externally from the Internet or internally from other repository users. The repository also maintains a stable copy of each user's mail state. The repository is therefore typically a computer with a large amount of disk storage. It is published for discussion and comment, and does not constitute a standard. As the proposal may change, implementation of this document is not advised.983 Cass Apr 86 ISO Transport Services on Top of the TCPThis memo describes a proposed protocol standard for the ARPA-Internet community. The CCITT and the ISO have defined various session, presentation, and application recommendations which have been adopted by the international community and numerous vendors. To the largest extent possible, it is desirable to offer these higher level services directly to the ARPA-Internet, without disrupting existing facilities. This permits users to develop expertise with ISO and CCITT applications which previously were not available in the ARPA-Internet. The intention is that hosts within the ARPA-Internet that choose to implement ISO TSAP services on top of the TCP be expected to adopt and implement this standard. Suggestions for improvement are encouraged.982 ANSI Apr 86 Guidelines for the Specification of the Structure of the Domain Specific Part (DSP) of the ISO Standard NSAP AddressThis RFC is a draft working document of the ANSI "Guidelines for the Specification of the Structure of the Domain Specific Part (DSP) of the ISO Standard NSAP Address". It provides guidance to private address administration authorities on preferred formats and semantics for the Domain Specific Part (DSP) of an NSAP address. This RFC specifies the way in which the DSP may be constructed so as to facilitate efficient address assignment. This RFC is for informational purposes only and its distribution is unlimited and does not specify a standard of the ARPA-Internet.981 Mills Mar 86 An Experimental Multiple-Path Routing AlgorithmThis document introduces wiretap algorithms, a class of experimental, multiple routing algorithms that compute quasi-optimum routes for stations sharing a packet-radio broadcast channel. The primary route (a minimum-distance path), and additional paths ordered by distance, which serve as alternate routes should the primary route fail, are computed. This prototype is presented as an example of a class of routing algorithms and data-base management techniques that may find wider application in the Internet community. Discussions and suggestions for improvements are welcomed.This RFC indicates how to obtain various protocol documents used in the DARPA research community. Included is an overview of the new 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook and available sources for obtaining related documents (such as DOD, ISO, and CCITT).979 Malis Mar 86 PSN End-to-End Functional SpecificationThis memo is an updated version of BBN Report 5775, "End-to-End Functional Specification". It describes important changes to the functionality of the interface between a host and the PSN (Packet Switch Node), and should be carefully reviewed by anyone involved in supporting a host on either the ARPANET or MILNET. The new End-to-End Protocol (EE) is being developed in order to correct a number of deficiencies in the old End-to-End Protocol, to improve its performance and overall throughput, and to better equip the Packet Switch Node (also known as the IMP) to support its current and anticipated host population.978 Reynolds Feb 86 Voice File Interchange Protocol (VFIP)The purpose of the Voice File Interchange Protocol (VFIP) is to permit the interchange of various types of speech files between different systems in the ARPA-Internet community. Suggestions for improvement are encouraged.NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry, retrieval, and posting of news articles using a reliable stream-based transmission of news among the ARPA-Internet community. NNTP is designed so that news articles are stored in a central database allowing a subscriber to select only those items he wishes to read. Indexing, cross-referencing, and expiration of aged messages are also provided. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.976 Horton Feb 86 UUCP Mail Interchange Format StandardThis document defines the standard format for the transmission of mail messages between computers in the UUCP Project. It does not however, address the format for storage of messages on one machine, nor the lower level transport mechanisms used to get the date from one machine to the next. It represents a standard for conformance by hosts in the UUCP zone.This RFC proposes enhancements to the Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) to support a simple, multiple-level routing capability while preserving the robustness features of the current EGP model. The enhancements generalize the concept of core system to include multiple communities of autonomous systems, called autonomous confederations. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.This RFC presents a description of how mail systems on the Internet are expected to route messages based on information from the domain system. This involves a discussion of how mailers interpret MX RRs, which are used for message routing.973 Mockapetris Jan 86 Domain System Changes and ObservationsThis RFC documents updates to Domain Name System specifications RFC-882 and RFC-883, suggests some operational guidelines, and discusses some experiences and problem areas in the present system.This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA-Internet community. The Password Generator Service (PWDGEN) provides a set of six randomly generated eight-character "words" with a reasonable level of pronounceability, using a multi-level algorithm. Hosts on the ARPA-Internet that choose to implement a password generator service are expected to adopt and implement this standard.971 DeSchon Dec 85 A Survey of Data Representation StandardsThis RFC is a comparison of several data representation standards that are currently in use. The standards discussed are the CCITT X.409 recommendation, the NBS Computer Based Message System (CBMS) standard, DARPA Multimedia Mail system, the Courier remote procedure call protocol, and the SUN Remote Procedure Call package. No proposals in this document are intended as standards for the ARPA-Internet at this time. Rather, it is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate approach to a data representation standard, leading eventually to the adoption of an ARPA-Internet standard.970 Nagle Dec 85 On Packet Switches With Infinite StorageThe purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on a particular problem in the ARPA-Internet and possible methods of solution. Most prior work on congestion in datagram systems focuses on buffer management. In this memo, the case of a packet switch with infinite storage is considered. Such a packet switch can never run out of buffers. It can, however, still become congested. The meaning of congestion in an infinite-storage system is explored. An unexpected result is found that shows a datagram network with infinite storage, first-in-first-out queuing, at least two packet switches, and a finite packet lifetime will, under overload, drop all packets. By attacking the problem of congestion for the infinite-storage case, new solutions applicable to switches with finite storage may be found. No proposed solutions this document are intended as standards for the ARPA-Internet at this time.969 Clark Dec 85 NETBLT: A Bulk Data Transfer ProtocolThis RFC has been replaced by RFC 998. This is a preliminary discussion of the Network Block Transfer (NETBLT) protocol. NETBLT is intended for the rapid transfer of a large quantity of data between computers. It provides a transfer that is reliable and flow controlled, and is structured to provide maximum throughput over a wide variety of networks. This description is published for discussion and comment, and does not constitute a standard. As the proposal may change, implementation of this document is not advised.This memo discusses problems that arise and debugging techniques used in bringing a new network into operation.This RFC proposes a new set of RFCs on how the networking code is integrated with various operating systems. It appears that this topic has not received enough exposure in the literature. Comments and suggestions are encouraged.966 Deering Dec 85 A Multicast Extension to the Internet ProtocolThis RFC defines a model of service for Internet multicasting and proposes an extension to the Internet Protocol (IP) to support such a multicast service. Discussion and suggestions for improvements are requested.965 Aguilar Dec 85 A Format for a Graphical Communication ProtocolThis RFC describes the requirements for a graphical format on which to base a graphical on-line communication protocol, and proposes an Interactive Graphical Communication Format using the GKSM session metafile. We hope this contribution will encourage the discussion of multimedia data exchange and the proposal of solutions.964 Sidhu Nov 85 Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control ProtocolThe purpose of this RFC is to provide helpful information on the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol (MIL-STD-1778) so- that one can obtain a reliable implementation of this protocol standard. This note points out three errors with this specification. This note also proposes solutions to these problems.
963 Sidhu Nov 85 Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Internet Protocol- The purpose of this RFC is to provide helpful information on the Military Standard Internet Protocol (MIL-STD-1777) so that one can obtain a reliable implementation of this protocol. This paper points out several problems in this specification. This note also proposes solutions to these problems.
This memo is in response to Bob Braden's call for a transaction oriented protocol (RFC-955), and continues the discussion of a possible transaction oriented transport protocol. This memo does not propose a standard.This memo is the official specification of the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for the DARPA-Internet community. The primary intent is to clarify and correct the documentation of the FTP specification, not to change the protocol. The following new optional commands are included in this edition of the specification: Change to Parent Directory (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD), and System (SYST). Note that this specification is compatible with the previous edition.This document describes the Network Time Protocol (NTP), a protocol for synchronizing a set of network clocks using a set of distributed clients and servers. NTP is built on the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), which provides a connectionless transport mechanism. It evolved from the Time Protocol and the ICMPTimestamp message and is a suitable replacement for both. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.957 Mills Sep 85 Experiments in Network Clock SynchronizationThis RFC discusses some experiments in clock synchronization in the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. One of the services frequently neglected in computer network design is a high-quality, time-of-day clock capable of generating accurate timestamps with small errors compared to one-way network delays. Such a service would be useful for tracing the progress of complex transactions, synchronizing cached data bases, monitoring network performance and isolating problems. In this memo, one such clock service design will be described and its performance assessed. This design has been incorporated as an integral part of the network routing and control protocols of the Distributed Computer Network (DCnet) architecture.956 Mills Sep 85 Algorithms for Synchronizing Network ClocksThis RFC discussed clock synchronization algorithms for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. The recent interest within the Internet community in determining accurate time from a set of mutually suspicious network clocks has been prompted by several occasions in which errors were found in usually reliable, accurate clock servers after thunderstorms which disrupted their power supply. To these sources of error should be added those due to malfunctioning hardware, defective software and operator mistakes, as well as random errors in the mechanism used to set and synchronize clocks. This report suggests a stochastic model and algorithms for computing a good estimator from time-offset samples measured between clocks connected via network links. Included in this report are descriptions of certain experiments which give an indication of the effectiveness of the algorithms.955 Braden Sep 85 Towards a Transport Service for Transaction Processing ApplicationsThe DoD Internet Protocol Suite includes two alternative transport service protocols, TCP and UDP, which provide virtual circuit and datagram service, respectively. These two protocols represent points in the space of possible transport service attributes which are quite "far apart". We want to examine an important class of applications, those which perform what is often called"transaction processing". We will see that the communication needs for these applications fall into the gap "between" TCP and UDP -- neither protocol is very appropriate.This RFC is the official specification of the NICNAME/WHOIS protocol. This memo describes the protocol and the service. This is an update of RFC 812. Obsoletes RFC 812.This RFC is the official specification of the Hostname Server Protocol. This edition of the specification includes minor revisions to RFC 811 which brings it up to date. Obsoletes RFC 811.952 Harrenstien Oct 85 DoD Internet Host Table SpecificationThis RFC is the official specification of the format of the Internet Host Table. This edition of the specification includes minor revisions to RFC 810 which brings it up to date. Obsoletes RFCs 810, 608.This RFC describes an IP/UDP bootstrap protocol (BOOTP) which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own IP address, the address of a server host, and the name of a file to be loaded into memory and executed. The bootstrap operation can be thought of as consisting of TWO PHASES. This RFC describes the first phase, which could be labeled `address determination and bootfile selection'. After this address and filename information is obtained, control passes to the second phase of the bootstrap where a file transfer occurs. The file transfer will typically use the TFTP protocol, since it is intended that both phases reside in PROM on the client. However BOOTP could also work with other protocols such as SFTP or FTP. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.950 Mogul Aug 85 Internet Standard Subnetting ProcedureThis memo discusses the utility of "subnets" of Internet networks, which are logically visible sub-sections of a single Internet network. For administrative or technical reasons, many organizations have chosen to divide one Internet network intoseveral subnets, instead of acquiring a set of Internet network numbers. This memo specifies procedures for the use of subnets. These procedures are for hosts (e.g., workstations). The procedures used in and between subnet gateways are not fully described. Important motivation and background information for a subnetting standard is provided in RFC-940. This RFC specifies a protocol for the ARPA-Internet community. If subnetting is implemented it is strongly recommended that these procedures be followed.There are various contexts in which it would be desirable to have an FTP command that had the effect of the present STOR but rather than requiring the sender to specify a file name istead caused the resultant file to have a unique name relative to the current directory.This RFC proposes an extension to the File Transfer Protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.948 Winston Jun 85 Two Methods for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802.3 NetworksThis memo describes two methods of encapsulating Internet Protocol (IP) datagrams on an IEEE 802.3 network.947 Lebowitz Jun 85 Multi-Network Broadcasting Within the InternetThis RFC describes the extension of a network's broadcast domain to include more than one physical network through the use of a broadcast packet repeater.946 Nedved May 85 Telnet Terminal Location Number OptionMany systems provide a mechanism for finding out where a user is logged in from usually including information about telephone extension and office occupants names. The information is useful for physically locating people and/or calling them on the phone. In 1982 CMU designed and implemented a terminal location database and modified existing network software to handle a 64-bit number called the Terminal Location Number (or TTYLOC). It now seems appropriate to incorporate this mechanism into the TCP-based network protocol family. The mechanism is not viewed as a replacement for the Terminal Location Telnet Option(SEND-LOCATION) but as a shorthand mechansim for communicating terminal location information between hosts in a localized community. This RFC proposes a new option for Telnet for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.In May 1983, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked jointly by the DoD and NBS to study the issues and recommend a course of action. The final report of the NRC committee was published in February 1985 (see RFC-942). The enclosed letter is from Donald C. Latham (ASDC3I) to DCA transmitting the NRC report and requesting specific actions relative to the recommendations of the report.This RFC reproduces a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC3I) to the Director of the Defense Communications Agency (DCA). This letter is distributed for information only.942 NRC Feb 85 Transport Protocols for Department of Defense Data NetworksThis RFC reproduces the National Research Council report resulting from a study of the DoD Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and Transport Protocol level 4 (TP-4).941 ISO Apr 85 Addendum to the Network Service Definition Covering Network Layer AddressingThis Addendum to the Network Service Definition Standard, ISO 8348, defines the abstract syntax and semantics of the Network Address (Network Service Access Point Address). The Network Address defined in this Addendum is the address that appears in the primitives of the connection-mode Network Service as the calling address, called address, and responding address parameters, and in the primitives of the connectionless-mode Network Service as the source address and destination address parameters.This document is distributed as an RFC for information only. It does not specify a standard for the ARPA-Internet.940 GADS Apr 85 Toward an Internet Standard Scheme for SubnettingSeveral sites now contain a complex of local links connected to the Internet via a gateway. The details of the internal connectivity are of little interest to the rest of the Internet. One way of organizing these local complexes of links is to use the same strategy as the Internet uses to organize networks, that is, to declare each link to be an entity (like a network) and to interconnect the links with devices that perform routing functions (like gateways). This general scheme is called subnetting, the individual links are called subnets, and the connecting devices are called subgateways (or bridges, or gateways). This RFC discusses standardizing the protocol used in subnetted environments in the ARPA-Internet. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. The author of this RFC is the Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures (GADS) Task Force, chaired by David L. Mills.939 NRC Feb 85 Executive Summary of the NRC Report on Transport Protocols for Department of Defense Data NetworksThis RFC reproduces the material from the "front pages" of the National Research Council report resulting from a study of the DOD Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and Transport Protocol level 4 (TP-4). The point of this RFC is to make the text of the Executive Summary widely available in a timely way. The order of presentation has been altered, and the pagination changed.938 Miller Feb 85 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Functional and Interface SpecificationThis RFC is being distributed to members of the DARPA research community in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals contained in it. While the issues discussed may not be directly relevant to the research problems of the DARPA community, they may be interesting to a number of researchers and implementors. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.This RFC suggests a simple method for workstations to dynamically access mail from a mailbox server. This RFC specifies a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvement. This memo is a revision of RFC 918.936 Karels Feb 85 Another Internet Subnet Addressing SchemeThere have been several proposals for schemes to allow the use of a single Internet network number to refer to a collection of physical networks under common administration which are reachable from the rest of the Internet by a common route. Such schemes allow a simplified view of an otherwise complicated topology from hosts and gateways outside of this collection. They allow the complexity of the number and type of these networks, and routing to them, to be localized. Additions and changes in configuration thus cause no detectable change, and no interruption of service, due to slow propagation of routing and other information outside of the local environment. These schemes also simplify the administration of the network, as changes do not require allocation of new network numbers for each new cable installed. This proposal discusses an alternative scheme, one that has been in use at the University of California, Berkeley since April 1984. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.This RFC discusses protocols proposed recently in RFCs 914 and 916, and suggests a proposed protocol that could meet the same needs addressed in those memos. The stated need is reliable communication between two programs over a full-duplex, point-to-point communication link, and in particular the RFCs address the need for such communication over an asynchronous link at relatively low speeds. The suggested protocol uses the methods of existing national and international data link layer standards. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.934 Rose Jan 85 Proposed Standard for Message EncapsulationThis memo concerns itself with message forwarding. Forwarding can be thought of as encapsulating one or more messages insideanother. Although this is useful for transfer of past correspondence to new recipients, without a decapsulation process (which this memo terms "bursting"), the forwarded messages are of little use to the recipients because they can not be distributed, forwarded, replied-to, or otherwise processed as separate individual messages. In order to burst a message it is necessary to know how the component messages were encapsulated in the draft. At present there is no unambiguous standard for interest group digests. This RFC proposes a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.This proposed option would allow a Server-Telnet to send a banner to a User-Telnet so that this banner would be displayed on the workstation screen independently of the application software running in the Server-Telnet.This RFC proposes an alternative addressing scheme for subnets which, in most cases, requires no modification to host software whatsoever. The drawbacks of this scheme are that the total number of subnets in any one network are limited, and that modification is required to all gateways.This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This is the second draft of this proposal (superseding RFC 912) and incorporates a more formal description of the syntax for the request and response dialog, as well as a change to specify the type of user identification returned.This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA-Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA-Internet that exchange terminal type information within the Telnet protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This standard supersedes RFC 884. The only change is to specify that the TERMINAL-TYPE IS sub-negotiation should be sent only in response to the TERMINAL-TYPE SEND sub-negotiation.The Host-Front End Protocol introduced in RFC 928 is described in detail in this memo. The first order of business is to declare that THIS IS A PROPOSAL, NOT A FINAL STANDARD, and the second order of business is to request that any readers of these documents who are able to do test implementations (a) do so and (b) coordinate their efforts with the author. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.928 Padlipsky Dec 84 Introduction to Proposed DOD Standard H-FPThe broad outline of the Host-Front End Protocol introduced here and described in RFC 929 is the result of the deliberations of a number of experienced H-FP designers, who sat as a committee of the DoD Protocol Standards Technical Panel. It is the intent of the designers that the protocol be subjected to multiple test implementations and probable iteration before being agreed upon as any sort of "standard". Therefore, the first order of business is to declare that THIS IS A PROPOSAL, NOT A FINAL STANDARD, and the second order of business is to request that any readers of these documents who are able to do test implementations (a) do so and (b) coordinate their efforts with the author. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.927 Anderson Dec 84 TACACS User Identification Telnet OptionThe following is the description of a Telnet option designed to facilitate double login avoidance. It is intended primarily for TAC connections to target hosts on behalf of TAC users, but it can be used between any two consenting hosts. For example, all hosts at one site (e.g., BBN) can use this option to avoid double login when TELNETing to one another.This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.926 ISO Dec 84 Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-Mode Network Services- This note is the draft ISO protocol roughly similar to the DoD Internet Protocol. This document has been prepared by retyping the text of ISO DIS 8473 of May 1984, which is currently undergoing voting within ISO as a Draft International Standard
(DIS). This document is distributed as an RFC for information only. It does not specify a standard for the ARPA-Internet.- The problem of treating a set of local area networks (LANs) as one Internet network has generated some interest and concern. It is inappropriate to give each LAN within a site a distinct ARPA-Internet network number. It is desirable to hide the details of the interconnections between the LANs within a site from people, gateways, and hosts outside the site. The question arises on how to best do this, and even how to do it at all. In RFC 917, Jeffery Mogul makes a case for the use of "explicit subnets" in a multi-LAN environment. The explicit subnet scheme is a call to recursively apply the mechanisms the ARPA-Internet uses to manage networks to the problem of managing LANs within one network. In this note I urge another approach: the use of "transparent subnets" supported by a multi-LAN extension of the Address Resolution Protocol. This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
922 Mogul Oct 84 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of SubnetsWe propose simple rules for broadcasting Internet datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.