As per Relevance of the word research, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group V.
Request for Comments: 1160
Obsoletes: RFC 1120 May 1990
The Internet Activities
Status of this
This RFC provides a history and description of the
Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations. This
is for informational use and does not constitute a standard. This
a revision of RFC 1120. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
1.
In 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA
initiated an effort to develop a technology which is now known
packet switching. This technology had its roots in message
methods, but was strongly influenced by the development of low-
minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during
mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78]. A
useful survey of this technology can be found in [IEEE 78].
During the early 1970's, DARPA initiated a number of programs
explore the use of packet switching methods in alternative
including mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78]. Concurrently
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) began an exploration of
switching on coaxial cable which ultimately led to the development
Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76].
The successful implementation of packet radio and packet
technology raised the question of interconnecting ARPANET with
types of packet nets. A possible solution to this problem
proposed by Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] in the form of an
protocol and a set of gateways to connect the different networks
This solution was further developed as part of a research program
internetting sponsored by DARPA and resulted in a collection
computer communications protocols based on the original
Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower level counterpart,
Protocol (IP). Together, these protocols, along with many
developed during the course of the research, are referred to as
TCP/IP Protocol Suite [RFC 1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82,
86].
In the early stages of the Internet research program, only a
researchers worked to develop and test versions of the
protocols. Over time, the size of this activity increased until,
Cerf [Page 1]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
1979, it was necessary to form an informal committee to guide
technical evolution of the protocol suite. This group was called
Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) and was established
Dr. Vinton Cerf who was then the DARPA program manager for
effort. Dr. David C. Clark of the Laboratory for Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named the chairman of
committee
In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency, then
for the operation of the ARPANET, declared the TCP/IP protocol
to be standard for the ARPANET and all systems on the
converted from the earlier Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP
Late that year, the ICCB was reorganized by Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf'
successor at DARPA, around a series of task forces
different technical aspects of internetting. The re-organized
was named the Internet Activities Board
As the Internet expanded, it drew support from U.S.
organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and
Administration (NASA). Key managers in these organizations
responsible for computer networking research and development,
an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC
to coordinate U.S. Government support for and development and use
the Internet system. The FRICC sponsored most of the U.S.
on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities
and its subsidiary organizations
In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a larger
sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal
Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET).
reorganization created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and
Working Groups. The membership of the FNC included all the
FRICC members and many other U.S. Government representatives.
first chairman of the FNC is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the
Science Foundation. The FNC is the Federal Government's body
coordinating the agencies that support the Internet. It
liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by
President's Science Advisor) which is responsible for setting
and technology policy affecting the Internet. It endorses
employs the existing planning and operational activities of
community-based bodies that have grown up to manage the Internet
the United States. The FNC plans to involve user and
communities through creation of an external advisory board and
coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives
from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to
applications. The FNC has also participated in planning for
creation of a National Research and Education Network in the
Cerf [Page 2]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
States
At the international level, a Coordinating Committee
Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed
includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America
Europe. Co-chaired by the executive directors of the FNC and
European Association of Research Networks (RARE), the CCIRN
a forum for cooperative planning among the principal North
and European research networking bodies
2. Internet Activities
The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee
Internet design, engineering and management. The Internet is
collection of over two thousand of packet switched networks
principally in the U.S., but also in many other parts of the world
all interlinked and operating using the protocols of the TCP/
protocol suite. The IAB is an independent committee of
and professionals with a technical interest in the health
evolution of the Internet system. Membership changes with time
adjust to the current realities of the research interests of
participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns
constituent members of the Internet
IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet
effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future.
members are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice
consent of the remaining members. The chairman serves a term of
years and is elected by the members of the IAB. The IAB focuses
the TCP/IP protocol suite, and extensions to the Internet system
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
Steering Group which reports to the IAB through its chairman.
task force is organized, by the chairman, as required, to carry
its charter. For the most part, a collection of Working
carries out the work program of each Task Force
All decisions of the IAB are made public. The principal vehicle
which IAB decisions are propagated to the parties interested in
Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for
(RFC) note series. The archival RFC series was initiated in 1969
Cerf [Page 3]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
Dr. Stephen D. Crocker as a means of documenting the development
the original ARPANET protocol suite [RFC 1000]. The editor-in-
of this series, Dr. Jonathan B. Postel, has maintained the quality
and managed the archiving of this series since its inception.
small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards. Most
them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion. The
number which document standards are especially marked in a "status
section to indicate the special status of the document. An
summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published
[RFC 1140].
RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other
whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly
the RFC editor. A Standard Protocol starts out as a
Standard and may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally
after suitable review, comment, implementation and testing
Prior to publication of a Proposed Standard RFC, it is made
for comment through an on-line Internet-Draft directory. Typically
these Internet-Drafts are working documents of the IAB or of
working groups of the Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces
Internet-Drafts are either submitted to the RFC editor
publication or discarded within 3-6 months. Prior to promotion
Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and
cycle may be initiated if significant changes to the RFC
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,
long-range problems and opportunities
5) Acts as an international technical policy liaison
representative for the Internet community,
6) Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated
the IETF or IRTF frameworks
To supplement its work via electronic mail, the IAB meets
to review the condition of the Internet, to review and
proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols,
set technical development priorities, to discuss policy matters
Cerf [Page 4]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
may need the attention of the Internet sponsors, and to agree on
addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition
retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB. Typically, two
the quarterly meetings are by means of video
(provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet
video-conferencing system). The minutes of the IAB meetings
published in the Internet Monthly on-line report
The IAB membership is currently as follows
Vinton Cerf/CNRI
Robert Braden/USC-ISI Executive
David Clark/MIT-LCS IRTF
Phillip Gross/CNRI IETF
Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI RFC
Hans-Werner Braun/Merit
Lyman Chapin/DG
Stephen Kent/BBN
Anthony Lauck/Digital
Barry Leiner/RIACS
Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc.
3. The Internet Engineering Task
The Internet has grown to encompass a large number of
geographically dispersed networks in academic and
communities. It now provides an infrastructure for a broad
with various interests. Moreover, the family of Internet
and system components has moved from experimental to
development. To help coordinate the operation, management
evolution of the Internet, the IAB established the
Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF is chaired by Mr.
Gross and managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).
The IAB has delegated to the IESG the general responsibility
making the Internet work and for the resolution of all short-
mid-range protocol and architectural issues required to make
Internet function effectively
The charter of the IETF includes
1) Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-
Internet protocols and architecture and
standards for IAB approval
2) Provision of a forum for the exchange of information
the Internet community
3) Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-
Cerf [Page 5]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
operational and technical problem areas and convening
Working Groups to explore solutions
The Internet Engineering Task Force is a large open community
network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned
the Internet and the Internet protocol suite. It is organized
a set of eight technical areas, each managed by a technical
director. In addition to the IETF Chairman, the area directors
up the IESG membership. Each area director has
responsibility for one area of Internet engineering activity,
hence for a subset of the IETF Working Groups. The area
have jobs of critical importance and difficulty and are selected
only for their technical expertise but also for their
skills and judgment. At present, the eight technical areas
chairs are
1) Applications - Russ Hobby/UC-
2) Host and User Services - Craig Partridge/
3) Internet Services - Noel Chiappa/
4) Routing - Robert Hinden/
5) Network Management - David Crocker/
6) OSI Integration - Ross Callon/DEC
Robert Hagens/UWisc
7) Operations - Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting
8) Security - Steve Crocker/
The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as
Groups. There are currently more than 40 of these. Working
tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of
specific task, although there are exceptions. The IETF is a
source of proposed protocol standards, for final approval by the IAB
The IETF meets quarterly and extensive minutes of the
proceedings as well as reports from each of the working groups
issued by the IAB Secretariat at the Corporation for
Research Initiatives
4. The Internet Research Task
To promote research in networking and the development of
technology, the IAB established the Internet Research Task
(IRTF).
In the area of network protocols, the distinction between
and engineering is not always clear, so there will sometimes
overlap between activities of the IETF and the IRTF. There is,
fact, considerable overlap in membership between the two groups
This overlap is regarded as vital for cross-fertilization
technology transfer. In general, the distinction between
Cerf [Page 6]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
and engineering is one of viewpoint and sometimes (but not always
time-frame. The IRTF is generally more concerned with
than with products or standard protocols, although
experimental protocols may have to be developed, implemented
tested in order to gain understanding
The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with
Internet focus. The work of the IRTF is governed by its
Research Steering Group (IRSG). The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG
David Clark. The IRTF is organized into a number of Research
(RGs) whose chairs of these are appointed by the chairman of
IRSG. The RG chairs and others selected by the IRSG chairman serve
the IRSG. These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and
covers a broad area of research, pursuing specific topics,
at least in part by the interests of the members and
recommendations of the IAB
The current members of the IRSG are as follows
David Clark/MIT LCS -
Robert Braden/USC-ISI - End-to-End
Douglas Comer/PURDUE - Member-at-
Deborah Estrin/USC - Autonomous
Stephen Kent/BBN - Privacy and
Keith Lantz/Consultant - Collaboration
David Mills/UDEL - Member-at-
5. The Near-term Agenda of the
There are seven principal foci of IAB attention for the period 1989 -
1990:
1) Operational
2) User
3) OSI
4) Testbed
5)
6) Getting
7) Getting
Operational stability of the Internet is a critical concern for
of its users. Better tools are needed for gathering
data, to assist in fault isolation at all levels and to analyze
performance of the system. Opportunities abound for
cooperation among the operators of the various Internet
[RFC 1109]. Specific, known problems should be dealt with, such
implementation deficiencies in some versions of the BIND domain
service resolver software. To the extent that the existing
Cerf [Page 7]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
Gateway Protocol (EGP) is only able to support limited topologies
constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths
be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System
protocol can be specified. Flexiblity for Internet
would be enhanced by the adoption of a common internal
routing protocol by all vendors of internet routers. A major
is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements
which were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989.
Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (
mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing. Efforts
be focused on widespread deployment of these capabilities in
Internet by mid-1990. The IAB recommends that existing white
facilities and newer ones, such as X.500, be populated with up-to
date user information and made accessible to Internet users and
of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to
Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail
should be vigorously pursued, as well as links to other
research communities in Europe and the rest of the world
Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic
software should be accelerated in 1990 after release of public
software implementing the private electronic mail standards [
1113, RFC 1114 and RFC 1115]. Finally, support for new or
applications such as computer-based conferencing, multi-
messaging and collaboration support systems should be developed
The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the
should be applied to support conferencing and collaboration
development and application experiments and to support multi-
router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing
network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding).
With respect to growth in the Internet, architectural
should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions
users and hundreds of thousands of networks. The naming, addressing
routing and navigation problems occasioned by such growth should
analyzed. Similarly, research should be carried out on analyzing
limits to the existing Internet architecture, including the
of the present protocol suite to cope with speeds in the
range and latencies varying from microseconds to seconds in duration
The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI
by the end of 1990 or sooner, if possible. Provision for multi
protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is
important goal. Introduction of X.400 electronic mail services
interoperation with RFC 822/SMTP [RFC 822, RFC 821, RFC 987,
1026, and RFC 1148] should be targeted for 1990 as well.
Cerf [Page 8]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
efforts will need to work in conjunction with the White
services mentioned above. The IETF, in particular, should
liaison with various OSI working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE,
Management Forum) to coordinate planning for OSI introduction
the Internet and to facilitate registration of information
to the Internet with the various authorities responsible for
standards in the United States
Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be
to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host
concerning configuration management, known security problems (
their solutions) and software and technologies available to
enhanced security and privacy to the users of the Internet
[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
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
Architecture", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology
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
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
Computer Network", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567,
June 1970.
[IEEE 78] Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), Uncapher, K.
H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of
IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks
Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978.
[IEEE 87] Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), Nielson, D.,
F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of
IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75,
No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987.
Cerf [Page 9]
RFC 1160 The IAB May 1990
[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",
of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976.
[POSTEL 85] Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using
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
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
Comments Reference Guide", RFC 1000, USC/Information
Institute, August 1987.
[RFC 1026] Kille, S., "Addendum to RFC 987: (Mapping
X.400 and RFC 822)", RFC 1026, University College London
September 1987.
[RFC 1109] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc
Management Review Group", RFC 1109, NRI, August 1989.
[RFC 1113] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for
Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment
Authentication Procedures", RFC 1113, IAB Privacy
Force, August 1989.
[RFC 1114] Kent, S., and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement
Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based
Management", RFC 1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
[RFC 1115] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for
Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers",
RFC 1115, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
[RFC 1140] Postel, J., Editor, "IAB Official
Standards", RFC 1140, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.
Cerf [Page 10]
RFC 1160 The IAB 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
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
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
Vinton G.
Corporation for National Research
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
Phone: (703) 620-8990
EMail: VCERF@NRI.RESTON.VA.
Cerf [Page 11]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
