RFC 1160

Internet Activities Board

📅 published May 1990, from ietf

RFC 1160: The Internet Activities Board 🎀

Okay bestie, so this is RFC 1160 🦋, written by V. Cerf of NRI, dated May 1990. It's informational, so it isn't a standard. It just gives the history and description of the Internet Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations 📚. It also obsoletes RFC 1120 and is a revision of it, so it's basically the glow-up version ✨. The memo can be distributed without limits 🌈.

Status of this Memo 📜

Real talk, this RFC is for informational use and does NOT count as a standard. It tells you the story of the IAB and the groups under it. It's a revision of RFC 1120, and distribution is unlimited 💅.

1. Introduction 🧚

In 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) started an effort to develop what we now call packet switching 💜. The tech had roots in message switching methods, but it was seriously shaped by the development of low-cost minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during the mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78]. If you want a really useful survey, it's in [IEEE 78] 🤓.

During the early 1970's, DARPA started a bunch of programs to test packet switching in other media, like mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78] 📡. At the same time, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was exploring packet switching on coaxial cable, and that eventually led to Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76] 🔌. Iconic behavior, honestly.

The success of packet radio and packet satellite technology raised the question of how to connect the ARPANET with other types of packet nets 🌉. Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] proposed a solution: an internetwork protocol plus a set of gateways to connect the different networks. That idea got developed further as part of a DARPA internetting research program, and it turned into a collection of protocols based on the original Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower-level counterpart, Internet Protocol (IP). Together, these protocols (plus a lot of others developed during the research) are called the TCP/IP Protocol Suite [RFC 1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK 86] 💖.

In the early days of Internet research, only a few researchers were building and testing versions of the internet protocols 🧪. Then it got bigger, and by 1979 it needed an informal committee to guide the technical evolution of the protocol suite. That group was the Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB), set up by Dr. Vinton Cerf, who was the DARPA program manager at the time. Dr. David C. Clark of the Laboratory for Computer Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology became the chairman 👑.

In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency (which was in charge of running the ARPANET then) declared TCP/IP the standard for the ARPANET 🙌. Every system on the network converted from the older Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP. Later that year, Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf's successor at DARPA, reorganized the ICCB around a series of task forces looking at different technical aspects of internetting. The reorganized group was named the Internet Activities Board 🦋.

As the Internet grew, it got support from U.S. Government organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 🇺🇸. Key managers in these organizations, the ones responsible for computer networking research and development, formed an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC). Its job was to coordinate U.S. Government support for the Internet, along with its development and use. The FRICC sponsored most of the U.S. research on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board and its subsidiary organizations 💅.

In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a bigger initiative sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal Coordinating Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) 🌟. That created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and its Working Groups. FNC membership included all the former FRICC members plus many other U.S. Government representatives. The first FNC chairman is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the National Science Foundation. The FNC is the Federal Government's body for coordinating the agencies that support the Internet. It provides liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by the President's Science Advisor), which is responsible for setting science and technology policy that affects the Internet 🏛️.

The FNC endorses and employs the existing planning and operational activities of the community-based bodies that grew up to manage the Internet in the United States 🤝. It plans to involve user and supplier communities through an external advisory board. It will also coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives, ranging from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to educational applications 🧬. The FNC has also participated in planning for a National Research and Education Network in the United States 🎓.

At the international level, the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed. It includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America and Europe 🌍. It's co-chaired by the executive directors of the FNC and the European Association of Research Networks (RARE). CCIRN is a forum for cooperative planning among the principal North American and European research networking bodies 💜.

2. Internet Activities Board 🏆

The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee for Internet design, engineering and management 🧠. The Internet is a collection of over two thousand packet switched networks, located mainly in the U.S. but also in many other parts of the world. They're all interlinked and run on the protocols of the TCP/IP protocol suite 🔗. The IAB is an independent committee of researchers and professionals who have a technical interest in the health and evolution of the Internet system. Its membership changes over time to match the current research interests of participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns of its constituent members 🔄.

IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet work well and to evolving it for a large-scale, high-speed future 🚀. New members are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice and consent of the remaining members. The chairman serves a term of two years and is elected by the members of the IAB 🗳️. The IAB focuses on the TCP/IP protocol suite, along with extensions to the Internet system that support multiple protocol suites.

The IAB has two principal subsidiary task forces 🧩:

  1. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
  2. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)

Each of these Task Forces is led by a chairman and guided by a Steering Group, which reports to the IAB through its chairman 🎯. The chairman organizes each task force as required to carry out its charter. For the most part, a collection of Working Groups carries out the work program of each Task Force 🛠️.

All decisions of the IAB are made public ✅. The main vehicle for spreading IAB decisions to the people interested in the Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for Comment (RFC) note series 📝. The archival RFC series was started in 1969 by Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, to document the development of the original ARPANET protocol suite [RFC 1000]. Editor-in-chief Dr. Jonathan B. Postel has maintained the quality of this series and managed its archiving since the beginning 📚. A small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards. Most of them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion 💬. The small number that document standards are specially marked in a "status" section to show their special status. An RFC summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published regularly [RFC 1140] 📋.

RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions whose intent is simply to inform, are typically submitted directly to the RFC editor 🧪. A Standard Protocol starts out as a Proposed Standard, and it may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally Standard after suitable review, comment, implementation and testing 🪜.

Before a Proposed Standard RFC is published, it's made available for comment through an on-line Internet-Draft directory 👀. These Internet-Drafts are typically working documents of the IAB or of the working groups of the Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces. Internet-Drafts are either submitted to the RFC editor for publication or discarded within 3-6 months ⏳. Before promotion to Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and review cycle may be started if significant changes to the RFC are contemplated 🔁.

The IAB performs the following functions 💅:

  1. Sets Internet Standards,
  2. Manages the RFC publication process,
  3. Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,
  4. Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying long-range problems and opportunities,
  5. Acts as an international technical policy liaison and representative for the Internet community, and
  6. Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within the IETF or IRTF frameworks.

To back up its work over email, the IAB meets quarterly 📅. At these meetings it reviews the condition of the Internet, reviews and approves proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols, sets technical development priorities, and discusses policy matters that may need the attention of the Internet sponsors. It also agrees on the addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition or retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB. Typically, two of the quarterly meetings are done by video teleconferencing (provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet packet video-conferencing system) 📹. The minutes of the IAB meetings are published in the Internet Monthly on-line report 🗒️.

The IAB membership is currently as follows: 🌈

            Vinton Cerf/CNRI              Chairman
            Robert Braden/USC-ISI         Executive Director
            David Clark/MIT-LCS           IRTF Chairman
            Phillip Gross/CNRI            IETF Chairman
            Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI       RFC Editor
            Hans-Werner Braun/Merit       Member
            Lyman Chapin/DG               Member
            Stephen Kent/BBN              Member
            Anthony Lauck/Digital         Member
            Barry Leiner/RIACS            Member
            Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc.    Member

3. The Internet Engineering Task Force ✨

okay so the Internet has gotten HUGE 🌈 it's spread across tons of networks all over the world, mostly in academic and research communities, and now it's basically infrastructure for a super broad crowd with all kinds of interests 💅 The whole family of Internet protocols and system pieces has also gone from experimental to commercial, which is a total glow-up 🦋 To help coordinate how it's run, managed, and kept evolving, the IAB set up the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🎀 The IETF is chaired by Mr. Phillip Gross and managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The IAB handed the IESG the general responsibility for making the Internet work, and for sorting out all the short- and mid-range protocol and architecture issues needed to keep the Internet functioning well 👑

The IETF's charter includes:

  1. Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-term Internet protocols and architecture and recommending standards for IAB approval.
  2. Provision of a forum for the exchange of information within the Internet community.
  3. Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-range operational and technical problem areas and convening of Working Groups to explore solutions.

The Internet Engineering Task Force is a massive, open community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers who care about the Internet and the Internet protocol suite 🫶 It's organized around eight technical areas, each run by a technical area director. Besides the IETF Chairman, the area directors make up the IESG membership. Each area director has primary responsibility for one area of Internet engineering, and so for a subset of the IETF Working Groups. These jobs are seriously important and hard, so directors aren't picked just for technical expertise but also for their managerial skills and judgment 💖 Right now, the eight technical areas and their chairs are:

1) Applications             -  Russ Hobby/UC-Davis
2) Host and User Services   -  Craig Partridge/BBN
3) Internet Services        -  Noel Chiappa/Consultant
4) Routing                  -  Robert Hinden/BBN
5) Network Management       -  David Crocker/DEC
6) OSI Integration          -  Ross Callon/DEC and
                               Robert Hagens/UWisc.
7) Operations               -  Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting)
8) Security                 -  Steve Crocker/TIS

The IETF gets its work done through subcommittees called Working Groups, and there are currently more than 40 of them 🧚 Working Groups tend to have a narrow focus, and their lifetime is bounded by finishing one specific task, although there are exceptions. The IETF is a major source of proposed protocol standards, which then go to the IAB for final approval. The IETF meets quarterly, and the IAB Secretariat at the Corporation for National Research Initiatives issues extensive minutes of the plenary proceedings plus reports from each of the working groups 📝

4. The Internet Research Task Force

To push research in networking and the development of new technology forward, the IAB set up the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 🔬

In network protocols, the line between research and engineering isn't always clear, so the IETF and IRTF will sometimes overlap 🌸 And honestly? There's a lot of overlap in membership between the two groups, which is seen as vital for cross-fertilization and technology transfer ✨ In general, the difference between research and engineering comes down to viewpoint and sometimes (but not always) timeframe. The IRTF is more concerned with understanding than with products or standard protocols, although specific experimental protocols may have to be developed, implemented and tested in order to gain understanding 🧪

The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with an Internet focus. Its work is governed by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG). The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG is David Clark. The IRTF is organized into a number of Research Groups (RGs), and the IRSG chairman appoints their chairs. The RG chairs, plus others selected by the IRSG chairman, serve on the IRSG. These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and each covers a broad area of research, pursuing specific topics. Those topics are determined at least in part by the members' interests and by recommendations from the IAB 🍓

The current members of the IRSG are:

David Clark/MIT LCS     -   Chairman
Robert Braden/USC-ISI   -   End-to-End Services
Douglas Comer/PURDUE    -   Member-at-Large
Deborah Estrin/USC      -   Autonomous Networks
Stephen Kent/BBN        -   Privacy and Security
Keith Lantz/Consultant  -   Collaboration Technology
David Mills/UDEL        -   Member-at-Large

5. The Near-term Agenda of the IAB

For the period 1989 - 1990, the IAB has seven principal foci 🎯

  1. Operational Stability
  2. User Services
  3. OSI Coexistence
  4. Testbed Facilities
  5. Security
  6. Getting Big
  7. Getting Fast

Operational stability is a critical concern for every one of the Internet's users 🫶 We need better tools for gathering operational data, so faults can be isolated at all levels and the performance of the system can be analyzed. There are loads of chances for the operators of the various Internet components to cooperate more [RFC 1109]. Specific, known problems should be dealt with too, like the implementation deficiencies in some versions of the BIND domain name service resolver software. Since the existing Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) can only support limited topologies, constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths should be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System routing protocol can be specified 🚧 Internet implementation would get more flexible if all vendors of internet routers adopted a common internal gateway routing protocol 🔥 A major effort is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements RFCs, which were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989 💅

Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (electronic mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing 💖 The goal is widespread deployment of these capabilities across the Internet by mid-1990. The IAB recommends that existing white pages facilities, and newer ones such as X.500, be populated with up-to-date user information and made accessible to Internet users and to users of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to the Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail carriers should be vigorously pursued, along with links to other network research communities in Europe and the rest of the world 🌍

Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic mail software should be accelerated in 1990, after public domain software implementing the private electronic mail standards is released [RFC 1113, RFC 1114 and RFC 1115] 🔐 Last but not least, support for new or enhanced applications, like computer-based conferencing, multi-media messaging, and collaboration support systems, should be developed 🎀

The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the FRICC should be used to support conferencing and collaboration protocol development and application experiments. They should also support multi-vendor router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing, network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding) 🧪

As for growth, architectural attention should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions of users and hundreds of thousands of networks 📈 The naming, addressing, routing and navigation problems that come with that growth should be analyzed. Research should also look at the limits of the existing Internet architecture, including whether the present protocol suite can cope with speeds in the gigabit range and latencies ranging from microseconds to seconds ⚡

The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI protocols by the end of 1990, or sooner if possible 🦋 Multi-protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is one important goal. Introducing X.400 electronic mail services, and interoperating with RFC 822/SMTP [RFC 822, RFC 821, RFC 987, RFC 1026, and RFC 1148], should also be targeted for 1990 💌 These efforts will need to work alongside the White Pages services mentioned above. The IETF, in particular, should establish liaison with various OSI working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE, and the Network Management Forum). That way, planning for OSI introduction into the Internet gets coordinated, and information pertinent to the Internet can be registered with the authorities responsible for OSI standards in the United States 🤝

Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be made to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host managers 🔒 That covers configuration management, known security problems (and their solutions), and the software and technologies available to provide enhanced security and privacy to Internet users.

References 📚

okay bestie, here are the receipts, every single source the original cites 🧾💅

  • [BARAN 64] Baran, P., et al, "On Distributed Communications", Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August 1964.
  • [CERF 74] Cerf V., and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection", IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-22, No. 5, pp. 637-648, May 1974.
  • [CERF 82] Cerf V., and E. Cain, "The DoD Internet Protocol Architecture", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology Center Symposium on Interoperability of Automated Data Systems, November 1982. Also in Computer Networks and ISDN, Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1983.
  • [CLARK 86] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet protocols", Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Symposium, Computer Communications Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 106-114, August 1988.
  • [HEART 70] Heart, F., Kahn, R., Ornstein, S., Crowther, W., and D. Walden, "The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA Computer Network", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567, June 1970.
  • [IEEE 78] Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), Uncapher, K. and H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks, Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978.
  • [IEEE 87] Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), Nielson, D., and F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75, No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987.
  • [LEINER 85] Leiner, B., Cole, R., Postel, J., and D. Mills, "The DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.
  • [METCALFE 76] Metcalfe, R., and D. Boggs, "Ethernet: Distributed Packet for Local Computer Networks", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976.
  • [POSTEL 85] Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985.
  • [RFC 821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 821, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
  • [RFC 822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982.
  • [RFC 987] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822", University College London, June 1986.
  • [RFC 1000] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "The Request for Comments Reference Guide", RFC 1000, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1987.
  • [RFC 1026] Kille, S., "Addendum to RFC 987: (Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822)", RFC 1026, University College London, September 1987.
  • [RFC 1109] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network Management Review Group", RFC 1109, NRI, August 1989.
  • [RFC 1113] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures", RFC 1113, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
  • [RFC 1114] Kent, S., and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based Key Management", RFC 1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
  • [RFC 1115] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers", RFC 1115, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
  • [RFC 1140] Postel, J., Editor, "IAB Official Protocol Standards", RFC 1140, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.
  • [RFC 1148] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822", RFC 1048, UCL, March 1990.
  • [ROBERTS 70] Roberts, L., and B. Wessler, "Computer Network Development to Achieve Resource Sharing", pp. 543-549, Proc. SJCC 1970.
  • [ROBERTS 78] Roberts, L., "Evolution of Packet Switching", Proc. IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 1307-1313, November 1978.

Note: RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, (1-800-235-3155), or on-line via anonymous file transfer from NIC.DDN.MIL.

Author's Address 💌

here's where to find the author, bestie 🎀

Vinton G. Cerf
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091

Phone: (703) 620-8990

EMail: VCERF@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
📦 where this page comes from