RFC 1775

RFC 1775: To Be "On" the Internet 🦋

okay bestie, this is RFC 1775, titled "To Be "On" the Internet," written by D. Crocker of Brandenburg Consulting 💖. It's dated March 1995 and its category is Informational ✨. The header doesn't list any RFCs it obsoletes or updates, so it's just vibing solo 🌸.

---

Status of this Memo ✨

okay so the vibe check here: this memo provides information for the Internet community 🫶. It does NOT specify an Internet standard of any kind 🙅. Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈.

Abstract 🎀

the Internet gives different levels of access to consumers and providers of service, and the differences between them matter a lot for what you can actually do 🤔. so it's super helpful to have terms that sort out the range, so the Internet community can be clear about whether a user (or an organization) is "on" the Internet 👀. this document suggests four terms for the major classes of access 💅.

1. Introduction 🧚

the Internet is a lot of things to a lot of people 🌍. it started as a technology and grew into a global service, and with that growth came more complexity in the technology and the service 😵‍💫. that's how people get confused about whether a given user is "on" the Internet. so who's on it? what can they actually do? this note is here to help Internet consumers and providers figure out the basic types of end-user access, the ones that show the big differences in how someone is attached to the Internet 🔥.

the list was built mostly from the user's point of view, not the technical crowd's 💜. the definitions assume users care most about application services ✨. so, lowkey, some of the definitions don't depend on using the underlying Internet connectivity protocols directly, which is TCP/IP 🤓. for a lot of technical discussions, these terms just won't be the right fit 🙈.

2. Labels for Internet Access 💖

okay, these definitions go from "most" to "least" Internet access, seen from the user's (consumer's) side 🌈. the first term mostly applies to Internet service providers, and the rest mostly apply to people who consume Internet service 💅.

FULL ACCESS 👑

this is a permanent (full-time) Internet attachment running TCP/IP 🔥. it's mainly for letting the Internet community reach application servers that Internet service providers run ✨. machines with Full access are directly visible to others on the Internet, for example through the Internet Protocol's ICMP Echo (ping) facility 👀. the core of the Internet is made up of the machines with Full access, and that's iconic 💫.

CLIENT ACCESS 🦋

the user runs applications that use Internet application protocols directly on their own computer platform 💻. but they might not be running the underlying Internet protocols (TCP/IP) 🤷‍♀️, they might not have full-time access (like dial-up) 📞, or they might have constrained access (like through a firewall) 🧱. when they're active, Client users might be visible to the general Internet, but that visibility can't be predicted 🌸. so, for example, most Client access users won't show up when someone empirically probes systems "on" the Internet at any given moment, like with the ICMP Echo facility 🙈.

MEDIATED ACCESS 🍓

the user runs no Internet applications on their own platform 😶. instead, an Internet service provider runs applications that use Internet protocols on the provider's platform, for the user 🧚‍♀️. the user gets simplified access to the provider, like dial-up terminal connectivity 📟. for Mediated access, the user is on the Internet, but their computer platform is not 😭. it's the computer of the mediating service (the provider) that's actually on the Internet 💜.

MESSAGING ACCESS 💌

the user has no Internet access except through electronic mail and netnews, like Usenet or a bulletin board service 📬. messaging services can work as a high-latency (aka slow) transport service, so this level of access can be quite powerful for mail-enabled services, even though it isn't interactive ⭐.

---

3. Sample Usage 🍭

the real test of any nomenclature is how it holds up in real-life situations 🧠. two simple cases involve home users 🏠. if someone uses a terminal program on their PC to dial up a public service that provides the Internet applications, then that user has Mediated Internet access 📟. the public service has Client or Full access, but the user doesn't 💅. on the other hand, users who connect via SLIP or PPP are running Internet applications on their own PCs, so they have Client Internet access 🎀.

lots of corporations now have a full-time link to the Internet 🏢. the link is based on TCP/IP, and it usually runs a bunch of Internet servers for email exchange and for making public corporate data available to the world, like through the World Wide Web and Gopher 🌐. clearly, the corporation is "on" the Internet, with Full Internet access 👑.

what about a user inside that corporation? lots of corporations separate their internal internet from the public Internet with a firewall 🧱. if a user on the internal internet has a desktop computer and reaches out to the Internet through the firewall by running any Internet applications, like a Web browser, then that user has Client Internet access 💻.

some corporations won't allow this 🙅‍♀️. instead, they require all software that touches the public Internet to run on specially administered machines that are part of the corporation's firewall suite of services 🔐. so users have to make a terminal connection to those special machines and run the Internet applications from there. those users have Mediated Internet access, same as home users who dial up a public service 😭💀.

---

4. Security Considerations 🔐

this specification does NOT, by itself, provide or define any security-related mechanisms 🙅. however, it does describe scenarios with different security implications for users and providers 🚨. readers are cautioned to think about those implications when choosing a service, so please, please do not skip this part 😤💀.

5. Acknowledgments 🫶

the development of these definitions was sparked by lots of public and private discussions where confusion over Internet access was everywhere 🌪️. agreement on an initial set of three terms came out of discussion on the Big-Internet mailing list, especially from comments by Alan Barret, Howard Berkowitz, Noel Chiappa, Steve Goldstein, Iain Hanson, Gary Malkin, Bob McKisson, Tim O'Reilly, Dave Piscitello and Bill Simpson 💜. later on, it became clear that a fourth category was needed, and that got discussed further with the list participants 🌈. none of them necessarily endorses the terms and definitions here, though. their notes just helped the author think it through 🧠. after the first round of public discussion, Smoot Carl-Mitchell and John Quarterman of Texas Internet Consulting came up with terminology for similar categories 🦋. that pushed the set to be revised, which is the version you're reading now, and it's the one that separates provider and consumer forms of access and really highlights the role of Full access in defining the Internet core 👑✨.

6. Security Considerations 🙈

security issues are not discussed in this memo 😶.

7. Author's Address 📮

David H. Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting
675 Spruce Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

Phone:    +1 408 246 8253
Fax:      +1 408 249 6205
EMail:    dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu