RFC 130

RESPONSE TO RFC #111 (PRESSURE FROM THE CHAIRMAN) 💖

Okay bestie, here's the full tea on RFC 130 🫶 First, the title block:

• RFC number: 130 🎀
• Series: Network Working Group 🌸
• Author: J. Heafner, Rand 🦋 (NIC 5848)
• Date: 22 April 1971 🍓
• Category or status: not listed in the header 🤷‍♀️
• Obsoletes: nothing listed in the header
• Updates: nothing listed in the header, but the text plans an RFC that updates NIC Memo #5767 (ARPA Network Site Status) 📚

The Big Goal 👑

So the whole point of RFC #111, as I'm reading it, is two-fold. One: establish realistic implementation schedules and make them known to the Network community so everyone can plan productive use of Network Services 📅. Two: uncover the implementation techniques and strategies that worked best so they might be useful for future implementations 🔥.

Where Things Stand 💅

RFC #111 asks for implementation schedules, and ngl, I haven't "prodded" the host teams yet 🙈. The reason is that TELNET is a big part of those schedules, and there's no specification for it that everyone knows about yet. Tom O'Sullivan, Raytheon (TELNET Chairman) and John Melvin, SRI (TELNET Committee Member) say a TELNET RFC will be generated soon 🧚. After that, I'll reach out to site liaisons about a schedule 💌.

Publishing the Schedules 📚

I'm gonna talk with Alex McKenzie, BBN about the form of publication for these schedules. Alex and I are both on board with publishing them as an RFC updating NIC Memo #5767 (ARPA Network Site Status) ✨. I'll collect and compile the info by phone, mail or NIC, then send it to Alex for technical editing and subsequent NIC RFC publication 🦋.

Alex also told me the forthcoming Resource Notebook (see NIC #5760) has much of the info on use of services, obtaining job numbers, etc. 📓 So RFC #111 schedules will be an update of NIC #5767 and may reference, but will not duplicate, the Resource Notebook. No copy-pasting, periodt 💀.

Why I'm In This Loop 🤔

One begins to wonder why I'm in this loop, since Alex has the responsibility to periodically update NIC #5767 😭. The reason, as RFC #111 states, is that Rand will assist in testing implementations remotely 🛰️. To make testing happen, I'd love first-hand information on schedules, plus comments on how we might be of service in this respect 🫶. Testing will be short-term and will not go beyond what is included in RFC #111. I'll contact site liaisons shortly to find out if and how we can be of assistance in this capacity ⭐.

Hit Me Up 💜

Please feel free to contact either me or Eric Harslem about this RFC or RFC #111. Bestie, you know where to find us 🌈

[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry] [into the online RFC archives by Alison M. De La Cruz 12/00]