RFC 899
Request For Comments summary notes: 800-899
RFC 899: Requests For Comments Summary 💖
Okay bestie, the title block says this is Network Working Group stuff, Request for Comments: 899, written by J. Postel and A. Westine at ISI, dated May 1984. It's the Notes: 800-899 summary, so it's basically a cheat sheet for the 100 RFCs from RFC 800 through RFC 899. 🦋 No category, obsoletes, or updates info is listed in the header itself, so I'm not making any up. ✨
Status of this Memo 🎀
This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 800 through RFC 899. It's a status report on those RFCs, so you can see what's what at a glance. 🌸
Here's the table, kept exactly as the original has it:
RFC Author Date Title
--- ------ ---- -----
899 Postel Apr 84 Requests For Comments SummaryRFC 899: Requests For Comments Summary 💅
Author: Postel. Date: Apr 84. This memo is the summary itself, so it's kind of meta, and honestly iconic. 🙈
RFC 898: Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting Notes 🍓
Author: Hinden. Date: Apr 84. This memo is a report on the Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting that went down at ISI on 28 and 29 February 1984. Robert Hinden of BBNCC chaired it, and Jon Postel of ISI hosted. About 35 gateway designers and implementors showed up, lowkey a big crowd. 👑
The notes come from the recollections of Jon Postel and Mike Muuss. Under each topic area you get Jon Postel's brief notes, plus extra details from Mike Muuss. It's a report on a meeting, so no conclusions, decisions, or policy statements are documented in it. Just vibes and notes, no official rulings. 💜
RFC 897: Domain Name System Implementation Schedule 🦋
Author: Postel. Date: Feb 84. This memo is a policy statement on how the Domain Style Naming System gets implemented across the Internet, and it's a partial update of RFC 881. The whole point is to lay out the schedule. 📅
Host names are going to change to domain style names. Hosts start using domain style names on 14-Mar-84, and the old style names get completely phased out before 2-May-84. This applies to both the ARPA research hosts and the DDN operational hosts. It's an official policy statement of the ICCB and the DARPA, so no cap, this one is serious. ✨
RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks 🌈
Author: Nagle. Date: Jan 84. This memo talks through some aspects of congestion control in IP/TCP Internetworks. It's meant to stimulate thought and discussion, so it's giving brainstorm energy. 🧚
It makes some specific suggestions for better congestion control implementation, but it does not specify any standards. Just ideas, bestie. 💭
RFC 895: A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Experimental Ethernet Networks 🔥
Author: Postel. Date: Apr 84. This RFC specifies a standard way to encapsulate Internet Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Experimental Ethernet. It's a standard protocol for the ARPA Internet community, so the vibe is super official. 👑
RFC 894: A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks 🫶
Author: Hornig. Date: Apr 84. This is the same idea but for regular Ethernet. It specifies a standard way to encapsulate Internet Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Ethernet, and it's a standard protocol for the ARPA-Internet community. Twins energy, honestly. 👯
RFC 893: Trailer Encapsulations 🌸
Author: Leffler. Date: Apr 84. This RFC talks about why people use "trailer encapsulations" on local-area networks, and it describes how that encapsulation gets implemented on various media. 🎀
This document is for information only. This is NOT an official protocol for the ARPA Internet community. Read it for the tea, but don't treat it as the rules. 💅
RFC 892: ISO Transport Protocol Specification 🍓
Author: ISO. Date: Dec 83. This is a draft version of the transport protocol the ISO was standardizing. It also showed up in the ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (V.12, N.3-4) from July-October 1982. This version is now out of date, so it's a historical moment now. 🕰️
RFC 891: DCN Local-Network Protocols 🌷
Author: Mills. Date: Dec 83. This RFC describes the DCN protocols for keeping connectivity, routing, and clock information in a local network. The procedures may be of interest to designers and implementers of other local networks too, so share the wealth. 🧚♀️
RFC 890: Exterior Gateway Protocol Implementation Schedule 💜
Author: Postel. Date: Feb 84. This memo is a policy statement on how the Exterior Gateway Protocol gets implemented in the Internet. It's an official policy statement of ICCB and DARPA, so it's a whole deal. 📣
After 1-Aug-84 there shall be no dumb gateways in the Internet. Every gateway must be a member of some autonomous system. Some gateway of each autonomous system must exchange routing information with some gateway of the core autonomous system using the Exterior Gateway Protocol. Dumb gateways are literally getting ghosted. 👻
RFC 889: Internet Delay Experiments ⭐
Author: Mills. Date: Dec 83. This memo reports on some measurements of round-trip times in the Internet. It also suggests some possible improvements to the TCP retransmission timeout calculation. It's both a status report on the Internet and advice to TCP implementers, so it's two-for-one. 🙌
RFC 888: "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol 🦄
Author: Seamonson. Date: Jan 84. This RFC describes the Exterior Gateway Protocol used to connect Stub Gateways to an Autonomous System of core Gateways. It specifies the working protocol and defines an ARPA official protocol. All implementers of Gateways should carefully review this document, so read it carefully, babe. 🔍
RFC 887: Resource Location Protocol 🎀
Author: Accetta. Date: Dec 83. This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes a resource location protocol for use in the ARPA Internet. It's most useful on networks that support some method of broadcast addressing, but it may also be used on other types of networks, so it's flexible. 🦋
For maximum benefit, all hosts which provide significant resources or services to other hosts on the Internet should implement this protocol. Hosts that don't implement the Resource Location Protocol risk being ignored by other hosts trying to locate resources on the Internet. Not being invited to the party is the risk. 🥲
RFC 886: Proposed Standard for Message Header Munging 💅
Author: Rose. Date: Dec 83. This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes the rules for transforming mail from the conventions of one message system into those of another. The treatment of header fields and recipient addresses is specified, so the glow-up of your email is covered. ✨
RFC 885: Telnet End of Record Option 💖
Author: Postel. Date: Dec 83. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes a method for marking the end of records in data transmitted on Telnet connections, so no more mystery endings. 🔚
RFC 884: Telnet Terminal Type Option 🌈
Author: Solomon. Date: Dec 83. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes a method for exchanging terminal type information in the Telnet protocol. Terminals finally introducing themselves, iconic. 🖥️
RFC 883: Domain Names - Implementation and Specification 🧚
Author: Mockapetris. Date: Nov 83. This RFC discusses how domain name servers and resolvers get implemented, specifies the format of transactions, and discusses using domain names with existing mail systems and other network software. It's the nerdy deep dive, and I'm obsessed. 🤓
RFC 882: Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities 🦋
Author: Mockapetris. Date: Nov 83. This RFC introduces domain style names, their use for ARPA Internet mail and host address support, and the protocol and servers used to implement domain name facilities. It's the intro episode before RFC 883, so start here. 🎬
RFC 881: The Domain Names Plan and Schedule 🌸
Author: Postel. Date: Nov 83. This RFC outlines a plan and schedule for implementing domain style names throughout the DDN/ARPA Internet community. Introducing domain style names will impact all hosts on the DDN/ARPA Internet, so everyone's getting a glow-up. 💫
RFC 880: Official Protocols 🍓
Author: Reynolds. Date: Oct 83. This RFC identifies the documents that specify the official protocols used in the ARPA Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or changes planned. It obsoletes RFC 840, so RFC 840 is officially retired. 🪦
RFC 879: The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics 🎀
Author: Postel. Date: Nov 83. This RFC discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and related topics. The purposes are to clarify some aspects of TCP and its interaction with IP. This memo is a clarification to the TCP specification, and it contains information that may be considered as "advice to implementers." Advice with receipts, slay. 🧾
RFC 878: The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol 🔥
Author: Malis. Date: Dec 83. This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol. The 1822L procedure lets ARPANET hosts use logical identifiers as well as 1822 physical interface identifiers to address each other, so it's a major upgrade. 🚀
RFC 877: A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over Public Data Networks 🌷
Author: Korb. Date: Sep 83. This RFC specifies a standard adopted by CSNET, the VAN gateway, and other organizations for transmitting IP datagrams over the X.25-based public data networks. Multiple orgs agreeing on one standard? Main character energy. 🌟
RFC 876: Survey of SMTP Implementations 🫶
Author: Smallberg. Date: Sep 83. This RFC is a survey of implementation status. It does not specify an official protocol. It notes the status of implementation of aspects of a protocol. It's expected that the status of the hosts reported on will change, so it's a snapshot in time. 📸
This information must be treated as a snapshot of the state of these implementations. Snapshot energy, don't treat it like a forever truth. 🕰️
RFC 875: Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalumps 🧚♀️
Author: Padlipsky. Date: Sep 82. This RFC is a discussion about the role of gateways in an internetwork, especially the problems of translating or mapping protocols between different protocol suites. It notes possible functionality mismatches, undesirable routing "singularity points," flow control issues, and the high cost of translating gateways. Heffalumps are real, bestie. 🐘
Originally published as M82-51 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. 📍
RFC 874: A Critique of X.25 🌈
Author: Padlipsky. Date: Sep 82. This RFC is an analysis of X.25 that points out some problems in the conceptual model, particularly the conflict between the interface aspects and the end-to-end aspects. The memo also touches on security and implementation issues. Honest reviews only, no filter. 🙅♀️
Originally published as M82-50 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. 📍
RFC 873: The Illusion of Vendor Support 💅
Author: Padlipsky. Date: Sep 82. This memo takes issue with the claim that international standards in computer protocols currently provide a basis for low-cost, vendor-supported protocol implementations. Not buying it, periodt. 🙄
Originally published as M82-49 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. 📍
RFC 872: TCP-ON-A-LAN 🦋
Author: Padlipsky. Date: Sep 82. This memo attacks the notion that TCP cannot be appropriate for use on a Local Area Network. Padlipsky really said "not me thinking TCP can't do LANs." 🙅
Originally published as M82-48 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford Massachusetts. 📍
RFC 871: A Perspective on the Arpanet Reference Model 💜
Author: Padlipsky. Date: Sep 82. This RFC is primarily intended as a perspective on the ARM. It points out some of the differences between the ARM and the ISORM, which members expressed in NWG general meetings, NWG protocol design committee meetings, the ARPA Internet Working Group, and private conversations over the years. Lots of tea, all sourced. ☕
Originally published as M82-47 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. 📍
RFC 870: Assigned Numbers 🔢
Author: Reynolds. Date: Oct 83. This RFC documents the list of numbers assigned for networks, protocols, and so on. It obsoletes RFCs 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, and 604. That's a whole lot of retirements, bestie. 🪦✨
RFC 869: A Host Monitoring Protocol 🌸
Author: Hinden. Date: Dec 83. The rest of this entry continues in part 2. Stay tuned, babe. 🫶
Okay so the first bit picks up the Host Monitoring Protocol entry, and it's giving "watch how your creations behave" 🦋 Designers of Internet software are literally encouraged to use it to keep an eye on their own stuff 👀
868. Time Protocol ⏰
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This spec is a standard for the ARPA Internet community 💜 Hosts on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Time Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The vibe is a site-independent, machine-readable date and time 🤖 The Time service sends the time back to whoever asked, counted as seconds since midnight on January first 1900 ✨
867. Daytime Protocol 🌤️
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Another standard for the ARPA Internet community 🎀 Hosts that choose to implement a Daytime Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Daytime service is so simple, bestie. It sends the current date and time as a character string, and it doesn't care what you typed in 💅
866. Active Users 👥
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This one is also a standard for the ARPA Internet community 🌸 Hosts that choose to implement an Active Users Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Active Users service sends back a list of the users who are currently active on the host, and again, it ignores the input 🙈
865. Quote of the Day Protocol 💬
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Standard for the ARPA Internet community, obviously 💖 Hosts that choose to implement a Quote of the Day Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Quote of the Day service sends a short message and ignores the input. Main quote energy ✨
864. Character Generator Protocol 🔤
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Standard for the ARPA Internet community 🫶 Hosts that choose to implement a Character Generator Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Character Generator service just sends data and ignores the input. It's a whole generator, it's giving pattern 🧚
863. Discard Protocol 🗑️
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Standard for the ARPA Internet community 🌈 Hosts that choose to implement a Discard Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Discard service throws away any data it gets. Literally the most unbothered service ever 💀
862. Echo Protocol 🔁
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Standard for the ARPA Internet community 🦋 Hosts that choose to implement an Echo Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Echo service sends back to the originating source any data it receives. It's giving "I got you" energy 💜
861. Telnet Extended Options - List Option 📜
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option gives you a way to extend the set of possible options 🎀 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 16239 👑
860. Telnet Timing Mark Option ⏱️
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option lets you check the roundtrip path between two Telnet modules 🛤️ This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 16238 🌸
859. Telnet Status Option 🚦
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option lets you find out what the other Telnet module thinks the status of the options is 👀 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes RFC 651 (NIC 31154) ✨
858. Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option 🚫
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option disables the exchange of go-ahead signals between the Telnet modules 🙅♀️ This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 15392 🍓
857. Telnet Echo Option 🪞
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option enables remote echoing by the other Telnet module 💕 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 15390 🫶
856. Telnet Binary Transmission 0️⃣1️⃣
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This Telnet Option turns on a binary data mode between the Telnet modules 🤖 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 15389 💜
855. Telnet Option Specifications 📝
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
This memo lays out the general form for Telnet options and how they should be specified 🧾 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes RFC 651 and NIC 18640 💅
854. Telnet Protocol Specifications 💻
Author: Postel · Date: May 83
Okay this is the big one, bestie 😭 It specifies the Telnet protocol used for remote terminal access on the ARPA Internet. The whole point is a fairly general, bi-directional, eight-bit byte oriented communications facility 🌈 Its main goal is a standard way for terminal devices and terminal-oriented processes to talk to each other. It's also envisioned that the protocol could be used for terminal-terminal communication ("linking") and process-process communication (distributed computation) 🧚 This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. It obsoletes NIC 18639 👑
853. Not issued yet. 🫥
This number never got published, so it's just vibes 👻
852. The ARPANET Short Blocking Feature 🧱
Author: Malis · Date: Apr 83
This RFC specifies the ARPANET Short Blocking Feature 🦋 It lets ARPANET hosts optionally shorten the IMP's host blocking timer. It replaces the ARPANET non-blocking host interface, which was never implemented, and it'll be available to hosts using either the 1822 or 1822L Host Access Protocol 🔥 This RFC is also a solicitation of comments on the Short Blocking Feature, especially from host network software implementers and maintainers. So if you build this stuff, your opinion matters 🫶
851. The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol 🛰️
Author: Malis · Date: Apr 83
This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is the successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol 🌟 1822L lets ARPANET hosts use logical names as well as 1822's physical port locations to address each other. Same energy, upgraded wardrobe 💅 This RFC is also a solicitation of comments on 1822L, especially from host network software implementers and maintainers. It obsoletes RFC 802 ✨
850. Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages 📰
Author: Horton · Date: Jun 83
This memo is distributed as an RFC only so researchers in the ARPA community can easily access the info 🎀 It does not specify an Internet standard, so don't go quoting it as one 🙅♀️ It defines the standard format for interchanging Network News articles among USENET sites. It describes the format for the articles themselves and gives partial standards for transmission of news 📬 The transmission side is not entirely standardized on purpose, so hosts keep flexibility to choose their own transmission hardware and software, and to decide whether to batch news and so on 🍓
849. Suggestions for Improved Host Table Distribution 📇
Author: Crispin · Date: May 83
This RFC is actually a request for comments 💬 The issue is a naming registry update procedure, both how it works now and what it could look like later. None of the proposed solutions are intended as standards at this time 🙈 The hope is that a general consensus emerges on the right solution, which could eventually lead to standards 🌈
848. Who provides the "Little" TCP Services? 🔍
Author: Smallberg · Date: Mar 83
This RFC lists the hosts that provide any of these "little" TCP services 🕵️♀️ The host list was taken from the NIC hostname table of 24-Feb-83. The tests were run on February 23 and 24, and March 3 and 5, from ISI-VAXA.ARPA 💖
847. Summary of Smallberg Surveys 📊
Author: Westine · Date: Feb 83
This is a summary of the surveys of Telnet, FTP, and Mail (SMTP) servers that David Smallberg ran in December 1982, and in January and February 1983, as reported in RFC 832-843 and 845-846 🧮 It pulls out how many hosts accepted the connection to their server for each of Telnet, FTP, and SMTP, and compares that to the total number of hosts in the Internet, not counting TACs or ECHOS 🫶
846. Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 22 February 1983 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Feb 83
This RFC is a survey of hosts to figure out the implementation status of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 👀 The host list was taken from the NIC hostname table of 18-Feb-83. The tests were run on 22-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA 🌸
845. Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 15 February 1983 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Feb 83
Same vibe as the last one: a survey of hosts checking the implementation status of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 💅 The host list came from the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83. The tests were run on 15-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA 🌟
844. Who Talks ICMP, too? Survey of 18 February 1983 🧭
Author: Clements · Date: Feb 83
This survey checks how many hosts can respond to TELENET connections from a user at a class C site 🔎 That takes more than IP and TCP. It also requires participation in gateway routing via ICMP and handling of Class C addresses 🤯 The host list was taken from RFC 843, pulling out only the hosts listed there as accepting TELNET connections. The tests were run on 18-Feb-83 ✨
843. Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 8 February 1983 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Feb 83
Another survey of hosts checking the implementation status of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 💖 The host list came from the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83. The tests were run on 8-Feb-83 and on 9-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA 🍓
842. Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 1 February 1983 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Feb 83
Survey number a bunch, still checking Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 🥹 The host list was taken from the NIC hostname table of 28-Jan-83. The tests were run on 1-Feb-83 and on 2-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA 🦋
841. Specification for Message Format for Computer Based Message Systems 💌
Author: FIPS PUB 98 · Date: Jan 83
This RFC is FIPS 98. It's distributed as an RFC so the ARPA research community can access it easily 📚 It does not specify a standard for the ARPA Internet. It obsoletes RFC 806 🙈
840. Official Protocols 🏛️
Author: Postel · Date: Apr 83
This RFC has been revised, see RFC 880 🔁
839. Who Talks TCP? 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Jan 83
Survey vibes again, checking Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 💅 The host list was taken from the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on 25-Jan-83 🌈
838. Who Talks TCP? 📡
Author: Smallberg · Date: Jan 83
Last one from this batch, same survey energy for Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP 👑 The host list was taken from the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on 18-Jan-83 💖
okay so this batch is where the 830s slide into the 800s, and it's giving early-Internet main character energy 🦋✨
837 Smallberg Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?This RFC is a survey of hosts to check which of Telnet, FTP, and Mail are running on TCP 💅 The host list came from the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82, and the tests ran on 11-Jan-83 🍓
836 Smallberg Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?Same survey again, but this time the host list came from the NIC hostname table of 20-Dec-82. The tests ran from 4-Jan-83 through 5-Jan-83 🌸
835 Smallberg Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?Still the same Telnet, FTP, and Mail check 🧚 The host list is from the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82, and the tests ran from 28-Dec-82 through 5-Jan-83 💜
834 Smallberg Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?Survey number four, bestie 🫶 Host list from the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82, and the tests ran on 22-Dec-82.
833 Smallberg Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?Okay, same survey, same host list from the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82. This time the tests ran on 14-Dec-82 🎀
832 Smallberg Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?The very first one in this run. Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP, checked against the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82, with tests run on 7-Dec-82 🌈
831 Braden Dec 82 Backup Access to the European Side of
SATNETOkay, this one is iconic 👑 The goal is to get discussion going about a specific Internet problem: a backup path for software maintenance of the European sector of the Internet, for when SATNET gets partitioned 💀 The idea is a mechanism built on the Source Routing option of IP, so you can reach European Internet sites through the VAN Gateway and UCL. This proposal is not meant to be a standard at this time 🙈
830 Zaw-Sing Su Oct 82 A Distributed System for Internet Name
ServiceThis RFC proposes a distributed name service for the DARPA Internet ✨ Its whole purpose is to get people talking about it. The hope is that a general consensus forms, which eventually leads to standards being adopted 🫶
829 Cerf Oct 82 Packet Satellite Technology Reference
SourcesThis one briefly describes the packet satellite technology that DARPA and several other participating organisations in the U.K. and Norway developed 🛰️ It also gives you a bibliography of relevant papers, so researchers who want experimental and operational experience with this dynamic satellite-sharing technique have somewhere to start 📚
828 Owen Aug 82 Data Communications: IFIP's
International "Network" of ExpertsThis RFC goes out to let the ARPA Internet community know what the IFIP technical committee on Data Communications has been up to 🌸 It also encourages people to join in on those activities 💖
827 Rosen Oct 82 Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)This is a proposal to set a standard for Gateway to Gateway procedures, where the Gateways are allowed to be mutually suspicious 👀 It's a DRAFT for that standard, and comments are strongly encouraged 🔥
826 Plummer Nov 82 An Ethernet Address Resolution ProtocolThe point of this RFC is to show a method for Converting Protocol Addresses (like IP addresses) into Local Network Addresses (like Ethernet addresses) ✨ It was a hot topic in the ARPA Internet Community at the time. The method is presented so you can consider it and comment, but it is not the specification of an Internet Standard 🦋
825 Postel Nov 82 Request for Comments on Requests for
CommentsOkay, this is the RFC that clears up what the status of RFCs actually is, and gives guidance to future RFC authors 📝 In a sense, it's a specification for RFCs. Meta, bestie 🌀
824 MacGregor Aug 82 The Cronus Virtual Local NetworkThis note describes the CRONUS Virtual Local Network, especially its addressing features 🍓 Those features include a method for mapping between Internet Addresses and Local Network addresses, which was a topic of current concern in the ARPA Internet community. It's meant to stimulate discussion and is not a specification of an Internet Standard 💜
823 Hinden Sep 82 The DARPA Internet GatewayThis RFC is a status report on the Internet Gateway that BBN developed, describing it as of September 1982 🧚 It goes into detailed message formats and gateway procedures, but this is not an implementation specification, so those details can change 🌈
822 Crocker Aug 82 Standard for the Format of ARPA
Internet Text MessagesThis one revises RFC 733 so it can serve the bigger, more complicated ARPA Internet 🎀 Some of RFC 733's features never really caught on, so they were removed to simplify the standard and the software that follows it. There's a different addressing scheme now for internetwork mail, and the concept of re-transmission was introduced 💅 Obsoletes RFC 733, NIC 41952.
821 Postel Aug 82 Simple Mail Transfer ProtocolThe goal of Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is to move mail reliably and efficiently 📬 It doesn't care which transmission subsystem it runs on, and it only needs a reliable ordered data stream channel 🫶 Obsoletes RFC 788, 780, and 772.
820 Postel Jan 82 Assigned NumbersThis is an old version, so check out RFC 870 instead 🙈
819 Zaw-Sing Su Aug 82 The Domain Naming Convention for
Internet User ApplicationsThis RFC tries to clarify the generalization of the Domain Naming Convention and the Internet Naming Convention 🌸 It also explores what adopting it would mean for Internet name service and user applications ✨
818 Postel Nov 82 The Remote User Telnet ServiceThis is the specification of an application protocol, and it is giving strict. Any host that implements this application level service must follow this protocol 💀
817 Clark Jul 82 Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
ImplementationThis RFC talks about some of the common reasons protocol implementations seem to run slowly 🐌 Literally a lifesaver 🧚
816 Clark Jul 82 Fault Isolation and RecoveryThis RFC describes the part of fault isolation and recovery that's the host's responsibility 🦋
815 Clark Jul 82 IP Datagram Reassembly AlgorithmsOkay, this one is so clever 🧠 It describes an alternate approach to reassembly that cuts the bookkeeping down to almost nothing. It needs only one buffer, the same size as the final datagram being reassembled. It can rebuild a datagram from any number of fragments arriving in any order, with any possible pattern of overlap and duplication, and it works for almost any sort of operating system 🎀
814 Clark Jul 82 Name, Addresses, Ports, and RoutesThis RFC gives suggestions and guidance for designing the tables and algorithms needed to keep track of these different kinds of identifiers inside a host implementation of TCP/IP 🗂️ It's a must-read if you're building a TCP/IP stack 💖
813 Clark Jul 82 Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
TCPThis RFC covers implementation strategies for two TCP mechanisms: the window and the acknowledgement 🪟 It also presents a particular set of algorithms that got tested in the field and seem to work properly with each other 🌈 With more experience, these algorithms may become part of the formal specification, until such time their use is recommended 🫶
812 Harrenstien Mar 82 NICNAME/WHOISThis RFC describes what the NICNAME/WHOIS Server is and how to access it 🔍 Together with the corresponding Identification Data Base, this server gives you online directory look-up that's equivalent to the ARPANET Directory 📇
811 Harrenstien Mar 82 Hostnames ServerThis one describes what the Hostnames Server is and how to access it 🧚 Its job is to deliver machine-readable name/address information about networks, gateways, hosts, and eventually domains, all within the internet environment 💜
810 Feinler Mar 82 DoD Internet Host Table SpecificationThis RFC specifies a new host table format that works for both ARPANET and Internet needs 🍓 On top of host name to host address translation and selected protocol information, it also includes network and gateway name to address correspondence, plus host operating system information 🖥️ This RFC obsoletes the host table described in RFC 608 💅
809 Chang Feb 82 UCL Facsimile SystemThis RFC describes the features of the computerised facsimile system developed in the Department of Computer Science at UCL 📠 It starts with the functions, then covers the related experimental work, then talks through the disciplines for system design, and finally describes how the system was implemented. The detailed descriptions live in the appendices 🌸
808 Postel Mar 82 Summary of Computer Mail Services
Meeting Held at BBN on 10 January 1979Bestie, this one is very belated 😭 It documents a meeting that happened three years earlier, to discuss the state of computer mail in the ARPA community and reach some conclusions. The goal was to guide future computer mail systems so a coherent total mail service would keep being provided 📬
807 Postel Feb 82 Multimedia Mail Meeting NotesThese are the notes from a meeting held at USC Information Sciences Institute on the 12th of January 🎞️ They cover common interests in multimedia computer mail issues and agree on some specific initial experiments 🧪
806 NBS Sep 81 Specification for Message Format for
Computer Based Message SystemsThis RFC is about Computer Based Message systems, which give a basis for interaction between different CBMS by defining the format of messages passed between them ✉️ This RFC is replaced by RFC 841 🫶
805 Postel Feb 82 Computer Mail Meeting NotesThese are notes from a meeting held at USC Information Sciences Institute on 11 January 1982, all about addressing issues in computer mail 📮 The big conclusion? Extend the "username@hostname" mailbox format to "username@host.domain", where the domain itself can be further structured 🌈✨
804 CCITT Jan 82 CCITT Draft Recommendation T.4This is the CCITT standard for group 3 facsimile encoding 📠 It's useful for data compression of bit map data 🖼️
803 Agarwal Nov 81 Dacom 450/500 Facsimile Data
TranscodingThe first part of this RFC is all about the Dacom 450 data compression algorithms 💅 It's an update and correction to an earlier memo, so it's giving "we fixed our own homework" energy 🎀 Part two gives a quick tour of the Dacom 500 data compression algorithm, which the INTELPOST electronic-mail network uses. That network is still under development by the US Postal Service and several foreign administrators 📬✨
Then the vibe shifts to a little index of older RFCs 🧚
802 Malis Nov 81 The ARPANET 1822L Host Access ProtocolRFC 802 proposed two major changes to the current ARPANET host access protocol 🔥 The first change would let hosts use logical addressing, meaning host addresses that don't depend on where the host physically sits on the ARPANET, so they can talk to each other 🗺️ The second would let a host shorten how long its IMP can block it after it hands a message over to the network. Right now the IMP can block further input from a host for up to 15 seconds, which is so long 😭 See RFCs 852 and 851.
801 Postel Nov 81 NCP/TCP Transition PlanRFC 801 talks about converting hosts from NCP to TCP 🦋 It also makes the principle services available: Telnet, File Transfer, and Mail 💌 These protocols let every host in the ARPA community share one common interprocess communication environment, which is honestly iconic 👑
800 Postel Nov 82 Requests for Comments SummaryRFC 800 is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 700 through RFC 799 📚 Think of it as a status report on those RFCs, and it's super helpful bestie 🌸💜
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc899 1984-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms