RFC 100
Categorization and guide to NWG/RFCs
Categorization and Guide to NWG/RFCs 🎀
Okay bestie, first the title block ✨ This one is by P. Karp of MITRE, dated 26 February 1971, and it's filed under NIC number 5761. The header says Request for Comments: XXXX. It doesn't list a category, and it doesn't obsolete or update anything. 🦋
The NWG/RFC Guide is an attempt to bring some order to the NWG/RFC series, which now numbers 102 💅. The Guide sorts the NWG/RFC notes into categories, names the topics being discussed and the NWG/RFCs that cover them, and shows whether each note is current, obsolete, or superseded 🗂️.
A minimum subset of NWG/RFCs is identified 💜. This subset is the stuff you should read to get up to speed fast on where each topic stands right now. It's giving "start here" energy 🌸.
For historical reasons, and for anyone who wants to trace how a topic developed over time, a short summary is given for each NWG/RFC in a particular category 🧚.
This initial Guide is being issued as a NWG/RFC because it sets the basis for future releases, so PLEASE comment 😭🫶! Suggestions, criticism, corrections, etc. will be accepted for about two weeks. Be critical, ngl, because the author has not had to implement an NCP and probably has some misconceptions about various technical points 🙈. An official version will be released on March 26. After that the Guide will be its own series of documents, separate from NWG/RFCs, the same way the Document No. 1 and No. 2 series is separate 🌈.
On renumbering NWG/RFCs: the author is leaning toward keeping the current sequential numbering scheme 🔥. The main reason is that the existing numbers carry both historical and semantic meaning. For example, saying "#33, #66, #83, etc." is a handy shorthand (it's giving the old corny joke about joke numbers 😂), and people use it a lot in meetings. The list of "current status" NWG/RFC numbers should ease any worry about having to keep stacks of NWG/RFCs around for quick reference 📚. The subject is not closed, though, and objections, suggestions, etc. are welcome ✨.
Guide to Network Working Group/Request for Comments 🧚
The NWG/RFC notes are split into 9 categories, and those categories are split again into subcategories 🍓. For each category, the official document (if there is one), the unresolved issues, and the documents to be published are listed 📋.
For each subcategory, the relevant NWG/RFCs are listed with a short description of what each note covers 💖.
The categories are listed again, and the current NWG/RFCs are identified (p. 23). The NWG/RFCs on that list make up the subset defining "current status" 👑. Heads up: most of the documentation in that subset is about Category D - Subsystem Level Protocol, and right now most of the issues there are unresolved 💀.
Finally, the NWG/RFCs are listed by number, with a reference to the relevant categories (p. 26) 🔢.
A. Administrative 💅
A.1 Distribution list 📬
NWG/RFC #s: 3, 10, 16, 24, 27, 30, 37, 52, 69, 95
The distribution list has names, addresses, and phone numbers for the people who receive NWG/RFCs 💌. The most recent list, NWG/RFC 95, names the Technical Liaison as the recipient for each site and supersedes all other RFCs in this category 👑.
A.2 Meeting announcements 🎟️
NWG/RFC #s: 35, 43, 45, 54, 75, 85, 87, 99
General network working group meetings happen about every three months 🗓️. Special subcommittee meetings are held ad hoc. All the related NWG/RFCs are obsolete except two: 87, which announces a graphics meeting at MIT in April, and 99, which announces a general NWG meeting in Atlantic City, May 16-20 ✨.
A.3 Meeting minutes 📝
NWG/RFC #s: 21, 37, 63, 77, 82
The meeting minutes give the highlights of what was discussed at general NWG meetings and report the definite decisions that were made 🧾.
To be published: a NWG/RFC by Dick Watson of SRI will report on the NWG meeting held at the University of Illinois, February 17-19 🦋.
A.4 Guide to NWG/RFCs 🗺️
NWG/RFC #s: 84, 100
The NWG/RFC Guide sorts the NWG/RFC notes, names the topics under discussion and the relevant NWG/RFCs, and shows whether each note is current, obsolete, or superseded 🌸. This category also includes lists of NWG/RFCs, ordered by number (like 84) and/or by author 🫶.
C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals ✨
NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50,
54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 93, 102Okay so the official Host/Host protocol in Document No. 1 is built on all the proposals, debates, and yes/no decisions about ideas in that list above, up to and including 59. It's a whole group project, bestie 🫶
In particular:
9, 11, and 22 are an early attempt at a Host/Host protocol. 11 supersedes 9, and 22 has some modifications to the control message formats presented in 11. The protocol wasn't considered powerful enough because it didn't provide for inter-host communication without logging in. It got thrown out after a network meeting in December 1969 💀
33 is the basis for the current protocol. It was presented at the SJCC, 1970 🎀
36 is a modification of 33. It discusses connection establishment without switching, flow control, and introduces the idea of reconnection. Control commands are summarized. 36 was distributed at a Network meeting in March 1970 🦋
37 presents the reaction to 36 and offers ideas on reconnection, flow control, and decoupling of links and connections. Provisions for error detection, status testing, experimentation, and expansions are discussed 🔥
38, 39, 40, 44, 49, and 50 are comments written in response to the meeting. 46 is also a comment, but in the form of a rewrite of 33. 46 introduces the notion of interrupts, INT, and ECO for status testing 👑
47 concerns the philosophy behind the notion of a link 🧚
48 summarizes the issues discussed in the above NWG/RFCs 🌸
54 is the initial official protocol submitted for criticism, comments, etc. It introduces a new mechanism for flow control in which the receiving host allocates buffer space and notifies the sending host of the space available ✨
57 and 59 comment on 54 💜
Document No. 1 differs from NWG/RFC 54 as follows: the commands GVB and RET have been added for flow control, and error condition codes have been added to ERR. NWG/RFC 102 presents some modifications to Document No. 1: fixed lengths are specified for ECO, ERP, and ERR, and a new pair of commands, RST and RRP (suggested in 57), is added 🍓
60, 61, and 62 propose new Host/Host protocols, quite different from the current official protocol. 62 supersedes 61. 60 and 62 are worth considering for possible implementation in future protocols. Hopefully, more documents of a similar nature will be generated as experience is gained with the current protocol 🌈
NWG/RFCs 65 and 68 comment on Document No. 1 💅
93 points out an ambiguity in Document No. 1 regarding the requirement of a message data type in the message sent from server socket 1. The ambiguity is resolved by 102, which eliminates the message data type from the level 2 protocol 🙈
C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques) 🧩
NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 23, 33, 36, 44, 46, 48, 55, 70, 71, 74, 89This category includes RFCs that give details of system calls, table structures, implementation techniques, etc. It's the nerdy corner and I'm obsessed 🤓
In particular:
NWG/RFCs 9, 11, and 22 are obsolete 🥀
23 is a general statement on sending or receiving multiple control messages in a single communication 📬
33 discusses the system calls used for interaction between the NCP and a user process 📞
36 describes a possible implementation, giving table structures and their interrelationships 🗂️
44 lists the system calls that SDC feels should operate, and includes a spec of calls to the NCP 📋
NWG/RFC 48 presents Postel's and Crocker's view on the environment in which a host time-sharing system operates, suggests some system calls, and presents a design to illustrate the components of an NCP. Main character energy 👑
55 presents a prototypical NCP that implements the initial official protocol specified in 54. It's offered as an illustrative example 🎨
70 gives some techniques for stripping the padding from a message ✂️
71 presents the method the CCN-Host at UCLA employed to resynchronize flow control when an input error occurs 🔁
74 documents the implementation of sections of the NCP at UCSB 🏫
89 gives a brief description of the "interim interim NCP" (IINCP) on the MIT Dynamic Modeling PDP-6/10, which was used to run some experiments. Iconic naming, no notes 😭
C.3 Connection Establishment and Termination 🤝
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 50, 54, 60, 62The NWG/RFCs in this category present the system calls and control commands used to establish and terminate connections, i.e., the handshaking that has to happen before connections are established or terminated. It's giving "how do we even say hi and bye" 👋
In particular:
36 presents a rough scenario of connection establishment, which differs from the one specified in 33 in that establishment does not include procedures for switching. 🔀
39 suggests adding a command TER to supplement CLS ➕
44 discusses the use of the CLS command and suggests that two commands, BLS and CLS, be adopted 🤔
46, 46, and 50 all discuss queuing of RFCs 📚
54 presents the initial official method for establishing and terminating connections 🏁
60 and 62 present schemes different from the official protocol 🌀
C.4 Flow Control 🚦
NWG/RFC #s: 19, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47, 54, 59, 60, 65, 68, 102The NWG/RFCs in this category address the problem of controlling the flow of messages from the sending socket to the receive socket. The official position is stated in Document No. 1, with an unresolved issue pending as described in NWG/RFC 102. Tea: flow control is a whole saga 🍵
In particular:
19 suggests that Hosts may want the capability of agreeing to lock programs into core for more efficient core-to-core transfers. This may require different handling of RFNMs 🧠
33 describes the use of RFNM (type 10 rather than 5) on a link to control flow. A control command RSM (resume) is defined to let the host signal for resumption of message flow. 46 describes the same technique 🚥
37 describes the effect some proposed changes (for reconnect and decoupling of connections and links) would have on RFNMs and "cease on link." 🛑
46 (MIT's rewrite of the protocol) introduces BLK and RSM commands as an alternative to "cease on link," SPD and RSM commands 🔄
47 presents BBN's position that buffering be handled by the Host, not the IMP 🏠
54 introduces a new flow control mechanism in which the receiving host is required to allocate buffer space for each connection and not notify the sending host of bit sizes. A new command, ALL (to allocate space), is sent from the receiving host to the sending host. With this new mechanism, 33, 37, 46, and 47 become obsolete 🪦
59 presents the objections of Project MAC and Lincoln Labs to the flow control mechanism introduced in 54. Their preference is for "cease on link," which allocates buffer space on demand 🙅♀️
60, which defines a simplified NCP protocol, presents a method of flow control based on the requirement that connections are full duplex 🪞
65 comments on Document No. 1. With respect to flow control, it disagrees with the allocation mechanism and with the introduction of an irregular message to make the cease mechanism work 🙃
68 proposes modifications to RFNM by defining three forms, which would insure control of data and would replace the memory allocation mechanism 🧃
102 eliminates the cease mechanism and introduces potential modifications to the flow control mechanism. The latter will be resolved and presented in Document No. 2 ⏳
C.5 Error Control and Status Testing 🩺
NWG/RFC #s: 2, 37, 39, 40, 46, 48, 54, 57, 102This category addresses schemes for detecting and controlling errors, and for Host status reporting and testing. Error handling but make it iconic 💖
In particular:
2 talks about error checking and gives an algorithm for implementing a checksum. It also recommends that Hosts should have a mode in which positive verification of all messages is required ✅
37 brings up the topics of error detection and status testing, which are expanded by RAND in 39 and 40. 39 introduces control commands ERR for error checking and QRY, HCU, and HGD for status testing. 40 expands on the discussion, suggests error codes, introduces RPY as a response to QRY, and suggests that NOP could be used for reporting Host status 📣
46 concurs with 40 on ERR and introduces ECO to test communication between NCPs 🏓
48 recommends that ERR, as presented in 40 and 46, be adopted; that a distinction be made between resource errors and other error types; that ECO, presented in 46, be of variable length; and that an ECO, ERP command pair be adopted 🧾
54 officially specifies the control commands ERR, ECO, and ERP. The official protocol doesn't include a specific list of error types, nor does it recommend the action to be taken. Suggestions for extensions to error detection and recovery and Host/Host status testing are encouraged 🌱
57 presents a list of error types and suggests new commands OVF for overflow errors and RST/RSR for host status testing 📋
102 sets fixed lengths for the ERR, ECO, and ERP control commands. RST and RSR are adopted 🔒
C.6 Interrupt ⚡
NWG/RFC #s: 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 102The interrupt system call and the INT control commands are used to interrupt a process. This is actually a third level issue. The NWG/RFCs leading up to the decision to include INR and INS in the official protocol are summarized below 🛎️
In particular:
46 introduces the INT command as a method for interrupting a process 🛑
48 recommends adoption of INT, with the restriction that the feature should not be used during communication with systems that scan for interrupts, and that INT should not be used on non-console type connections (see D.2) 🚫
49 expands on the explanation of INT. 50 concurs with proposal 46, that INT is useful 🙌
54 induces INT and INS control commands in the official protocol as an escape mechanism, where interpretation is a local matter 🗝️
102 discusses synchronization of interrupt signals, presents two implementation schemes, and relegates the topic to the third level protocol. INS should be used to indicate a special code in the input stream 🫧
C.7 Dynamic Reconnection 🔌
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50The notion of dynamic reconnection was introduced early in the Host/Host protocol design. However, the consensus was that it introduced complexities that the initial NCP implementations did not want to cope with. The need for dynamic reconnection was questioned; NWG/RFC 48 explains why it was included and considered useful. It's the plot twist of the whole saga 🎬
In particular:
33 introduces the concept of switching connections to the Logger. 36 presents a scheme for dynamic reconnection, i.e., reconnection can take place after the flow is started 🔁
37 presents two methods suggested by BBN for handling reconnection 🧩
38 discusses changes to the proposed END and RDY control commands that would be necessary if connections were multiplexed over links 🧵
39 states that dynamic reconnection is too complex 😵💫
44 presents two cases where reconnection could be used, suggests that the cases be separated, and recommends implementation of only the case of a simple connection switch within the same Host 🎯
46 recommends that dynamic reconnection be reserved for further Host/Host protocol implementations 📦
48 discusses the aesthetics of dynamic reconnection in detail, but concedes that it won't be included in the initial protocol. 49 and 50 concur with the decision 🫡
C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links 🔗
NWG/RFC #s: 37, 38, 44, 48
Okay so, a connection is basically an extension of a link 🦋 The NWG/RFCs in this category are all about how those two relate, and it's giving full debate energy ✨
In particular:
- 37 presents the pros and cons of decoupling connections and links.
- 38 recommends that connections be multiplexed over links. Two cases where this would be useful are presented, and the effect on the proposed protocol is discussed. Both 37 and 38 suggest including the destination socket as part of the text of the message, and they recommend that messages should be send over any unblocked link. 💌
- 44 suggests using link numbers in control commands (except RFSs) because there's a 1 to 1 correspondence between links and foreign socket numbers. 🔢
- 48 recommends leaving links and connections coupled. 🫶
C.9 Other 🌸
Other topics that fall into the Host/Host protocol category are:
- Marking/Padding: see B.2
- Record/Message Boundaries: see D.5
- Experimentation and Expansion: The assignment of links for experimentation and expansion is discussed in NWG/RFC #s 37 and 48. 🧪
- Instance Tag: The addition of an instance tag to the socket identifier is introduced in 46, is supported by 49 and 50, and is not recommended in 48. The matter is unresolved (see "To be published", section C). 🤷♀️
- Broadcast Facility: A control command to implement a broadcast facility as introduced in 39. It was not supported in 48. 📣
D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL (LEVEL 3) 🌈
Official document: none
Unresolved issues: all
To be published: Three committees have been set up to address user level issues, specifically: logger, console, and TELNET protocols (D.1, D.2, D.3); data transformation (D.4); and, graphics protocol (D.6). Status reports will be published prior to the next Network meeting (May 1971). In addition, a companion paper to 98 discussing console protocol has been promised by MIT MAC and G. Grossman (Ill.), and will issue an RFC proposing a file transmission protocol. 📮
D.1 Logger Protocol 👀
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 79, 82, 88, 91, 93, 97, 98
Logger Protocol specifies the procedures by which a user gets connected to a remote Host. The logger is a process, always in execution, which listens for login requests. 🔐
In particular:
- 33 proposes that the logger listen to calls on socket #0. It then switches to the assigned socket. The sequence of events is illustrated.
- 46 proposes a User Control and Communication (UCC) module, which implements logger protocol and permits the logger to interact with the NCP. It proposes the use of two full-duplex pseudo-typewriter connections.
- 48 proposes that sockets <U, H, 0> and <U, H, 1> designate either the input and output sockets of a copy of the logger or the console sockets.
- 49 is a write-up of a combination of the proposals presented in 46 and 48. 49 presents the disadvantages of the new proposal and reverts back to supporting the UCC of 46.
- 50 indicates RAND support for the UCC presented in 46.
- 56 defines a send-logger and a receive-logger with a full-duplex connection. The logger handles one request at a time, and requests are queued. The receiver logger is identified as user 0 on socket 0.
- 66 introduces a dial-up protocol (Initial Connection Protocol, ICP) to get a process at one site in contact with the logger at another site.
- 74 documents the logger implemented at UCSB.
- 77 and 82 report the discussion of logger protocol at the FJCC 1970 Network meeting. E. Harslem and E. Meyer agreed to write proposals.
- 79 discusses a conflict between Document No. 1 and NWG/RFC 66 regarding the use of ALL prior to connection establishment.
- 80 presents a variation of 66 that rectifies the conflict. 80 also suggests that ICP should apply to more than just the logger, i.e., let user 0 signify the logger. 💡
- 88 documents the logger implemented as part of NETRJS, which allows access to RJS at UCLA's CCN. The ICP described in 66 and 80 is adhered to. The logger is designated as user 0.
- 91 contains a description of the logger for the PDP-10 at Harvard.
- 93 points out an ambiguity in the Host/Host protocol of Document No. 1 regarding the requirement of message data type for ICP. The ambiguity is rectified by NG/RFC 102.
- 97 includes the ICP (as proposed in 80) used to establish connection to NIC.
- 98 is the logger protocol proposal issued by E. Meyer.
D.2 Console Protocol 💻
NWG/RFC #s: 20, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 82, 88, 91, 96, 97, 98
Console protocol will specify conventions for what goes out over the network. Included are conventions for echoing, character set, interrupt or break, end of line, and message formats. ⌨️
In particular:
- 20 suggests a standard of 7-bit ASCII in an 8-bit byte, with the high order bit 0.
- 44 discusses three possibilities for echoing over the network (echoing, no echoing, optional echoing) and states a preference for no echoing. 44 also states a preference for establishing a network common code where all code conversion is performed on outgoing text; thus, all incoming text would be in the common code.
- 46 proposes the use of interrupt on the third level. An interrupt means "quit" when sent from a requestor process to a created process. The command level is entered.
- 48 and 49 relegate issues of echoing and code conversion to third level protocol.
- 50 and 56 support adoption of ASCII for the network standard character set. 56 also discusses two uses of break characters (interrupt): in a panic situation and to exit from subsystem. Three message formats (character by character, end by carriage return, several command lines per message) are discussed. A recommendation that echoing be handled locally is made.
- 66 specifies that the standard console use 7-bit ASCII in 8 bits with the 8th bit on (note the conflict with 20). It also specifies the use of INR for break or interrupt. 🚨
- 74 documents console protocol implemented by UCSB.
- 77 and 82 report on console protocol topics (echoing, full vs half duplex) discussed at the Network meeting, FJCC 1970.
- 88 documents conventions used by NETRJS for RJS at CCN, UCLA.
- 91 discusses code standards.
- 96 and 97 document conventions used for NIC at SRI ARC.
- 98 proposes specifications for general console communications and addresses full vs half duplex, character escapes, and action characters.
D.3 TELNET Protocol 📟
NWG/RFC #s: 15, 33, 76, 80, 83, 91, 96, 97
TELNET is a subsystem permitting a teletype-like terminal at a remote Host to function as a teletype at the serving Host. TELNET protocol specifies the user level interface to the network by way of network system calls. 🧚
In particular:
- 15 introduces the TELNET concept and presents a sample dialogue between Utah's PDP-10 and SRI's 940. System primitives are proposed.
- 33 describes TELNET and gives essentially the same example as in 15.
- 76 describes a terminal user control language for Illinois's PDP-11 ARPA Network Terminal System. The protocol defined permits the user to utilize the network at a symbolic level.
- 80 and 83 introduce the concept of a Protocol Manager that can manage protocol sequences between consoles and the network. The Form Machine (see D.4) can be used for translations.
- 91 contains a proposal for a User/User protocol that has the ability to function as TELNET.
- 96 describes a series of experiments to be conducted using the TELNET subsystem at SRI ARC.
- 97 presents a detailed proposal for a standard TELNET protocol.
D.4 NIL, DEL, and Form Machines 🧩
NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 42, 51, 63, 80, 83, 96
NIL, DEL, and Form Machines are proposals of similar methods for adapting user programs and/or data to the network. A committee chaired by J. Heafner has been formed to plan, implement, and exercise a language for reconfiguring data streams. 🔄
In particular:
NIL (Network Interchange Language), described in 51, introduces the concept of an abstract network machine which would permit a user to consider the computer network as an overall computing facility. All dialogue would take place between hosts and the network machine. NIL permits the description of the environment and the description of the Front End of an interactive system. Sublanguages for describing control, operation, data declaration, and environment are used. With NIL, the network machine can operate in standard mode as well as user-defined extended mode. The network machine can act as a user of a Host; conversely, a Host can be a user of a network machine. Each Host will have a generator to generate a translator from the descriptive sublanguage inputs.
DEL (Decode - Encode Language), described in 5, utilizes a front end translator at the using site to translate the using site characters to the server host character set. Return messages are subsequently translated locally to the local standard. Immediate feedback in an interactive mode is also handled locally. DEL can be used for the operation of large display-oriented systems. Provisions are given for representing a universal hardware. The syntax is included.
Two proposals for the Form Machine have been given. 80 introduces the concept of the Form Machine, an experimental software package operating on regular expressions that describe data formats. 83 presents a different approach: a syntax-driven interpreter which operates on a grammar which is an _ordered_ set of replacement rules. 83 contains a description of the Form Machine with some examples of replacement rules for particular data types. Application of the Form Machine to program protocols is also discussed.
31 proposes a message description language as a standard symbolic method for defining and describing binary messages. In the future, the descriptive language could be used as input to generators of data translation programs.
42 proposes the use of message data types prior to the development of network languages specifying the syntax and semantics of messages. Programs would extract the message data type and transform the data accordingly. Both standard and local types would be handled (as in RFC #51), probably using tables stored at one location such as NIC. 62 presents data typed codes.
96 includes a discussion on a Front End for NLS (T) and suggests that further study be given to standard languages as presented in 51.
D.5 Record/Message Boundaries 📦
NWG/RFC #s: 13, 49, 50, 58, 63, 77, 82, 91
Positions that no special structures should be imposed on data transmission are presented in 49 and 91. 50 and 58 disagree. 58 claims that logical and physical message distinctions exist and that logical messages must begin on a physical message boundary. 🚧
63 reports a decision from a meeting that records may begin anywhere in a message. In a later meeting, 77 and 82, the issue was reopened. Discussion included consideration of methods of indicating the end of a message, and alternatives were given. Earlier RFCs had discussed these alternatives: 13 proposes a 0 length message to specify EOF; 50 proposes use of a bit count preceding the transmission and discusses solutions to the problem of dropping bits. 🫧
D.6 Network Graphics ✨
NWG/RFC #s: 43, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 94
Okay, network graphics protocol proposals are still in the formative stages 🎨 Here's the rundown:
- 43 mentions LIL, an interpretable language at Lincoln Labs that can handle interactive graphics.
- 77 and 82 discuss forming a working group to specify procedures for using graphics over the network.
- 80 states that graphics oriented descriptions will be added to the Form Machine.
- 86 is a proposal for a network standard format for a data stream that controls graphics displays. 87 announces a network graphics meeting hosted by MIT and suggests discussion topics. Both 86 and 87 are attempts to stimulate some interest in generating graphics protocol proposals 🦋
- 89 describes a Harvard-MIT graphics experiment using the network.
- 94 comments on 8 and presents an alternate proposal.
D.7 File Transmission 📂
NWG/RFC #s: 13, 38, 77, 82, 91
File transmission is at the informal discussion stage, ngl. Nothing substantive has been published as NWG/RFCs in this category 🫠
- 13 proposes using a 0 length message to specify EOF.
- 38 recommends routing multiple connections over the same link to handle file transmissions over the network.
- 77 and 82 summarize comments on file transmission problems aired at the Network meeting in Houston, Nov. 1970.
- 91 describes how PDP-10 file transmission could be handled over the network.
E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK 📊
Official document: none
Unresolved issues: Should NCPs be altered to keep measurement statistics?
E.1 General
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
77 and 82 both report on the comments made at the Network meeting in Houston, 1970, about network measurements. UCLA and BBN are officially responsible for gathering network statistics. So the big question is: is it reasonable to alter the NCP to keep statistics? 🤔
E.2 Clock ⏰
NWG/RFC #s: 28, 29, 32, 34
The NWG/RFCs in this category discuss requirements for a clock to measure network delay.
- 28 is concerned with installing a real-time clock at SRI ARC and requests comments on network time standards for delay measurement.
- 29 responds to 28, stating that a millisecond clock should be sufficient.
- 32 discusses the desirability of adding a network clock for measuring user-oriented message delays. A one millisecond resolution is a reasonable specification. The problems of clock synchronization and long term accuracy are addressed.
- 34 describes the SRI ARC clock on the XDS 940.
F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE 🌱
NWG/RFC #s 78, 89
Reports on experience with the network are starting to get published, yay! As sites begin to get their NCPs up, more notes in this category should be generated, and they are encouraged 💖
- 78 describes NCP checkout between UCSB and RAND.
- 89 describes initial activity on the network between MIT MAC Dynamic Modelling/Computer Graphics PDP-6/10 System and the Harvard PDP-10.
G. SITE DOCUMENTATION 📚
Official document. None
Unresolved issues: Procedures for entering documentation at NIC.
To be published. Dick Watson, SRI ARC, will publish documentation specifications and procedures.
G.1 General
NWG/RFC #s 77, 82
77 and 82 contain general comments on storing system documentation on-line.
G.2 NIC
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
77 and 82 contain summaries of Engelbart's discussion of NIC at the Network meeting in Houston, November, 1970.
96 and 97 contain details of third level protocol implementation of NLS (NIC).
G.3 UCSB
NWG/RFC #s: 74
74 presents specifications for network use of the UCSB On-Line System (OLS).
G.4 CCN (UCLA)
NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90
88 describes the protocol implementation for RJE.
90 specifies the resources available at CCN, operating as a Network Service Center.
G.5 University of Illinois
NWG/RFC #s: 76
76 describes the PDP-11 ARPA Network Terminal System implementation.
H. ACCOUNTING 💰
To be published: B. Kahn, BBN, will generate an RFC discussing important considerations for an accounting mechanism.
NWG.RFC #s: 77, 82
This topic will be addressed by the long-range Host/Host protocol committee, set up at the Network meeting, University of Illinois, February 1971.
77 and 82 discuss the need for some network accounting scheme, primarily for sites classified as Service Centers rather than Research Centers.
I. OTHER 🧺
The topics grouped in this catch-all category may in the future constitute independent categories.
I.1 Hardware 🔧
NWG/RFC #s: 12, 64
12 contains diagrams that indicate the logical sequence of hardware operations which occur within the IMP/Host interface.
64 proposes a hardware solution to getting rid of marking. 64 has been superseded by 102.
I.2 Request for References 🔍
NWG/RFC #s: 81
81 requests references concerning communications.
Issues and Current NWG/RFCs 🌟
Here's the current-status subset, bestie, copied exactly so nothing gets lost 🫶
Subset reflecting current status:
NWG/RFC #s: 5, 12, 30-33, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53-56, 60, 62, 66, 74,
76-78, 80-83, 86-91, 94-100, 102
A. ADMINISTRATIVE
A.1 Distribution List
NWG/RFC #s: 95
A.2 Meeting Announcements
NWG/RFC #s: 87, 99
A.3 Meeting Minutes
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
A.4 Guide to NWG/RFCs
NWG/RFC #s: 100
A.5 Policies
NWG/RFC #s: 30, 41, 53, 77, 82, 102
B. HOST/IMP PROTOCOL
Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822
B.1 General
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 47, 102
B.2 Marking/Padding
NWG/RFC #s: 102
C. HOST/HOST PROTOCOL
Official document: Document No. 1, S. Crocker, 3 August 1970
C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 48, 54, 60, 62, 102
C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques)
NWG/RFC #s: 55, 74
C.3 Connection Establishment and Termination
NWG/RFC #s: 54
C.4 Flow Control
NWG/RFC #s: 54 102
C.5 Error Control and Status Testing
NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
C.6 Interrupt
NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
C.7 Dynamic Reconnection
NWG/RFC #s: 47
C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links
NWG/RFC #s: 48
D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL
D.1 Logger Protocol
NWG/RFC #s: 56, 66, 80,98
D.2 Console Protocol
NWG/RFC #s: 66, 77, 82, 96, 97, 98
D.3 TELNET Protocol
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 96, 97
D.4 NIL, DEL, Form Machines
NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 51, 83
D.5 Record/Message Boundaries
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
D.6 Network Graphics
NWG/RFC #s: 86, 87, 94
D.7 File Transmission
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK
E.1 General
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
E.2 Clock
NWG/RFC #s: 32
F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE
NWG/RFC #s: 78, 89
G. SITE DOCUMENTATION
G.1 General
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
G.2 NIC
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
G.3 UCSB
NWG/RFC #s: 74
G.4 CCN (UCLA)
NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90
G.5 Illinois
NWG/RFC #s: 76
H. ACCOUNTING
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
I. OTHER
I.1 Hardware
NWG/RFC #s: 12
I.2 Request for References
NWG/RFC #s: 81List of NWG/RFC #'s 1-102 With Cross-Reference to Categorized Topics 🗂️
Next up is the full list, with each RFC and its categories. The little asterisk (*) marks the ones in the current-issues subset 💅
List of NWG/RFC #'s 1-102 With Cross-Reference to Categorized Topics
NWG/RFC 1: HOST Software
S. Crocker (UCLA) 7 April 1969
Obsolete
NWG/RFC 2: HOST Software
B. Duvall (SRI) 9 April 1969
C.5, otherwise obsolete
NWG/RFC 3: Documentation Conventions
S. Crocker (UCLA) 9 April 1969
A.1
NWG/RFC 4: Network Timetable
E. Shapiro (SRI) 24 March 1969
Obsolete
*NWG/RFC 5: DEL
J. Rulifson (SRI) 2 June 1969
D.4
NWG/RFC 6: Conversation with Bob Kahn
S. Crocker (UCLA) 10 April 1969
Obsolete
NWG/RFC 7: HOST/IMP Interface
G. Deloche (UCLA) 5 May 1969
Obsolete
NWG/RFC 8: ARPA Network Functional Specifications
G. Deloche (UCLA) 5 May 1969
Obsolete
*indicates inclusion in the subset of "current issues".
NWG/RFC 9: HOST Software
G. Deloche (UCLA) 1 May 1969
C.1 C.2
NWG/RFC 10: Documentation Conventions
S. Crocker 29 July 1969
A.1
NWG/RFC 11: Implementation of the HOST-HOST Software Procedures in
GORDO
G. Deloche (UCLA) 1 August 1969
C.1 C.2
*NWG/RFC 12: IMP/HOST Interface Flow Diagram
M. Wingfield (UCLA) 26 August 1969
I.1
NWG/RFC 13: Referring to NWG/RFC 11
V. Cerf (UCLA) 20 August 1969
D.5 D.7
NWG/RFC 14: (never issued)
NWG/RFC 15: Network Subsystem for Time-Sharing HOSTS
C. S. Carr (UTAH) 25 September 1969
D.3
NWG/RFC 16: MIT (address)
S. Crocker 27 August 1969
A.1
NWG/RFC 17 & Some Questions Re: HOST-IMP Protocol
17a
J. E. Kreznar (SDC) 27 August 1969
B.1
NWG/RFC 18: (use of links 1 and 2)
V. Cerf (UCLA) September 1969
A.5
NWG/RFC 19: Two Protocol Suggestions to Reduce
Congestion at Swap-bound Nodes
J. E. Kreznar (SDC) 7 October 1969
B.1 C.4
NWG/RFC 20: ASCII Format for Network Interchange
V. Cerf (UCLA) 10 October 1969
D.2
NWG/RFC 21: (report of Network meeting)
V. Cerf (UCLA) 17 October 1969
A.3 B.1
NWG/RFC 22: HOST-HOST Control Message Formats
V. Cerf (UCLA) 17 October 1969
C.1 C.2
NWG/RFC 23: Transmission of Multiple Control Messages
G. Gregg (UCSB) 16 October 1969
C.2
NWG/RFC 24: Documentation Conventions
S. Crocker (UCLA) 21 November 1969
A.1 A.5
NWG/RFC 25: No High Link Numbers
S. Crocker (UCLA) 30 October 1969
A.5
NWG/RFC 26: (never issued)
NWG/RFC 27: Documentation Conventions
S. Crocker (UCLA) 6 December 1969
A.1 A.5
NWG/RFC 28: Time Standards
B. English (ARC) 13 January 1970
E.1
NWG/RFC 29: Note in Response to Bill English's
Request for Comments
R. Kahn (BBN) 19 January 1970
E.1
NWG/RFC 30: Documentation Conventions
S. Crocker (UCLA) 4 February 1970
A.1 A.5
*NWG/RFC 31: Binary Message Forms in Computer Networks
D. Borrow (BBN)
W.R. Sutherland (LINC) February 1968okay bestie, the list keeps going and it's giving archive energy 📚✨ here's the rest of the index, every entry kept exactly as it was 🫶
D.4
*NWG/RFC 32: Connecting M.I.T. Computers to the ARPA
Computer-to-Computer Communication Network
D. Vedder (MAC) 31 January 1969
E.1
*NWG/RFC 33: New HOST-HOST Protocol
S. Crocker (UCLA) 12 February 1970
B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7 D.1 D.3
NWG/RFC 34: Some Brief Preliminary Notes on the ARC Clock
B. English (ARC) 26 February 1970
E.1
NWG/RFC 35: Network Meeting
S. Crocker (UCLA) 3 March 1970
A.2
NWG/RFC 36: Protocol Notes
S. Crocker (UCLA) 16 March 1970
B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7
NWG/RFC 37: Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.
S. Crocker (UCLA) 20 March 1970
A.1 A.3 B.1 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.7 C.8 C.9
NWG/RFC 38: Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC 36
S.M. Wolfe (UCLA) 20 March 1970
B.1 C.1 C.7 C.8 D.7
NWG/RFC 39: Comments on Protocol Re: NWG/RFC 36
E. Harslem (RAND)
J. Heafner (RAND) 25 March 1970
C.1 C.3 C.5 C.7 C.9
NWG/RFC 40: More Comments on the Forthcoming Protocol
E. Harslem (RAND)
J. Heafner (RAND) 27 March 1970
C.1 C.5
*NWG/RFC 41: IMP-IMP Teletype Communication
J. Melvin (ARC) 30 March 1970
A.5
NWG/RFC 42: Message Data Types
E. I. Ancona (LINC) 31 March 1970
D.4
NWG/RFC 43: Proposed Meeting
A. G. Nemeth (LINC) 8 April 1970
A.2 D.6
NWG/RFC 44: Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36
A. Shohani (SDC)
R. Long (SDC)
A. Kandsberg (SDC) 10 April 1970
B.2 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.7 C.8 D.2
NWG/RFC 45: New Protocol is Coming
J. Postel (UCLA)
S. Crocker (UCLA) 14 April 1970
A.2
NWG/RFC 46: ARPA Network Protocol Notes
E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC) 17 April 1970
B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 D.1
*NWG/RFC 47: BBN's Comments on NWG/RFC 33
J. Postel (UCLA)
S. Crocker (UCLA) 20 April 1970
B.1 C.4
*NWG/RFC 48: A Possible Protocol Plateau
J. Postel (UCLA)
S. Crocker (UCLA) 21 April 1970
A.5 B.2 C.1 C.2 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2
NWG/RFC 49: Conversations with Steve Crocker
E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC) 25 April 1970
B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5
NWG/RFC 50: Comments on the Meyer Proposal
E. Harslem (RAND)
J. Heafner (RAND) 30 April 1970
B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5
*NWG/RFC 51: Proposal for a Network Interchange Language
M. Elie (UCLA) 4 May 1970
D.4
NWG/RFC 52: Updated Distribution List
S. Crocker, J. Postel 1 July 1970
A.1
*NWG/RFC 53: An Official Protocol Mechanism
S. Crocker (UCLA) 9 June 1970
A.5
*NWG/RFC 54: An Official Protocol Proffering
S. Crocker (UCLA) 18 June 1970
A.2 A.5 B.2 C.1 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6
*NWG/RFC 55: A Prototypical Implementation of the NCP
J. Newkirk, et al (HARV) 19 June 1970
C.2
*NWG/RFC 56: Third Level Protocol
E. Belove, et al (HARV) 19 June 1970
D.1 D.2
NWG/RFC 57: Thoughts and Reflections on NWG/RFC 54
M. Kraley, J. Newkirk (HARV) 19 June 1970
C.1 C.5
NWG/RFC 58: Logical Message Synchronization
T. P. Skinner (MAC) 26 June 1970
D.5
NWG/RFC 59: Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation
E. W. Meyer Jr. 27 June 1970
C.1 C.4
*NWG/RFC 60: A Simplified NCP Protocol
R. Kalin (LINC) 13 July 1970
C.1 C.3 C.4
NWG/RFC 61: A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource
Sharing Computer Network
D. Walden (BBN) 17 July 1970
superseded by 62
*NWG/RFC 62: A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource
Sharing Computer Network Sharing Computer Network
D. Walden (BBN) 3 August 1970
C.1 C.3
NWG/RFC 63: Belated Network Meeting Report
V. Cerf (UCLA) 31 July 1970
A.3 D.4 D.5
NWG/RFC 64: Getting Rid of Marking
M. Elie (undated)
B.2 H.2
NWG/RFC 65: Comments on Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1
(by S. Crocker - 8/3/70)
D. Walden (BBN) 29 August 1970
B.2 C.1 C.4
*NWG/RFC 66: 3rd level Ideas and Other Noise
S. Crocker (UCLA) 26 August 1970
D.1 D.2
NWG/RFC 67: Proposed Changes to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate Marking
W. Crowther (BBN) (undated)
B.2
NWG/RFC 68: Comments on Memory Allocation Control Commands
(CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and RFNM
M. Elie (UCLA) 31 August 1970
NWG/RFC 69: Distribution List Change for MIT
A. Bhushan (MAC) 22 September 1970
A.1
NWG/RFC 70: A Note on Padding
S. Crocker (UCLA) 15 October 1970
B.2 C.2
NWG/RFC 71: Reallocation in Case of Input Error
T. Schipper (UCLA) 25 September 1970
C.2
NWG/RFC 72: Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network Protocol
R.D. Bressler (MAC) 28 September 1970
A.5
NWG/RFC 73: Response to NWG/RFC 67
S. Crocker (UCLA) 25 September 1970
A.5
*NWG/RFC 74: Specification for Network Use of the UCSB On-Line
Systems
J. White 16 October 1970
D.1 D.2 G.3
NWG/RFC 75: Network Meeting
S. Crocker (UCLA) 14 October 1970
A.2
*NWG/RFC 76: Connection-By-Name: User-Oriented Protocol
J. Bouknight et al., (ILL) 28 October 1970
D.3 G.5
*NWG/RFC 77: Network Meeting Report
J. Postel (UCLA) 20 November 1970
A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2 H
*NWG/RFC 78: NCP Status Report: UCSB/RAND
E. Harslem et al., (RAND) (undated)
F
NWG/RFC 79: Logger Protocol Error
E. W. Meyer, Jr. (MAC) 16 November 1970
D.1
*NWG/RFC 80: Protocols and Data Formats
E. Harslem et al., (RAND) 1 December 1970
D.3 D.4 D.6
*NWG/RFC 81: Request for Reference Information
J. Bauknight (Ill.) 3 December 1970
I.2
*NWG/RFC 82: Network Meeting Notes
E. Meyer (MAC) 9 December 1970
A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2 H
*NWG/RFC 83: Language - Machine for Data Reconfiguration
R. Anderson et al. (RAND) 18 December 1970
D.3 D.4
NWG/RFC 84: List of NWG/RFC's 1- 80
NIC 23 December 1970
A.4
NWG/RFC 85: Network Working Group Meeting
S. Crocker (ULA) 28 December 1970
A.2
*NWG/RFC 86: Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a Data
Stream to Control Graphics Display
S. Crocker (UCLA) 5 January 1971
D.6
*NWG/RFC 87: Topics for Discussion at the Next Network Working
Group Meeting
A. Vezza (MAC) 12 January 1971
A.2 D.6
*NWG/RFC 88: NETRJS - A Third Level Protocol for Remote Job Entry
R. Braden, S. M. Wolfe (UCLA) 13 January 1971
D1. D.2 G.4
*NWG/RFC 89: Some Historic Moments in Networking
B. Metcalfe (MAC, Harvard) 19 January 1971
C.2 D.6 F
*NWG/RFC 90: CCN as a Network Service Center
R. T. Braden (UCLA) 25 January 1971
G.4
*NWG/RFC 91: A Proposed User-User Protocol
G. Mealy (Harvard) 27 December 1970
D.1 D.2 D.3 D.5 D.7
NWG/RFC 92: (Not Received)
NWG/RFC 93: Initial Connection Protocol
A. McKenzie (BBN) 27 January 1971
D.1
*NWG/RFC 94: Some Thoughts on Network Graphics
E. Harslem, J. Heafner (RAND) 3 February 1971
D.6
*NWG/RFC 95: Distribution of NWG/RFC's Through the NIC
S. Crocker 4 February 1971
A.1
*NWG/RFC 96: An Interactive Network Experiment to Study Modes of
Accessing the Network Information Center
D. Watson (SRI-ARC) 12 February 1971
D.2 D.3 D.4 G.2
*NWG/RFC 97: A First Cut at a Proposed TELNET Protocol
J. Melvin, D. Watson (SRI-ARC) 15 February 1971
D.1 D.2 D.3 G.2
*NWG/RFC 98: Logger Protocol Proposal
E. Meyer, T. Skinner (MAC) 11 February 1971
D.1 D.2
*NWG/RFC 99: Network Meeting
P. Karp 22 February 1971
A.2
*NWG/RFC 100: Categorization and Guide to NG/RFCs
P. Karp (MITRE) 20 February 1971
A.4
NWG/RFC 101: (Not Received)
*NWG/RFC 102: Output of Host/Host Protocol Glitch
Cleaning Committee
S. Crocker 22, 23 February 1971
A.5 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.6
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Gottfried Janik 2/98 ]
RFC>>>and that's the whole index, bestie 🦋 every RFC is still there, with its authors, dates and category codes exactly as they were 💜
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc100 1971-02
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms