RFC relevance of february

As per Relevance of the word february, we have this rfc below:

Network Working Group P.
Request for Comments: XXXX
NIC: 5761 26 February 1971

Categorization and Guide to NWG/

The NWG/RFC Guide is an attempt to introduce some order into
NWG/RFC series, which now numbers 102. The Guide categorizes
NWG/RFC notes, identifies topics under discussion and the
NWG/RFCs, and indicates whether the notes are current, obsolete,
superseded

A minimum subset of NWG/RFCs is identified. This subset consists
the NWG/RFCs that one should read to quickly become familiar with
current status of topics

For historical reasons and for readers interested in tracing
the stages of development of a topic, a brief summary is given
each NWG/RFC relevant to a particular category

This initial Guide is being issued as a NWG/RFC since it
the basis for future releases. So, please comment! Suggestions
criticism, corrections, etc., will be accepted for a period
approximately two weeks. Be critical as I have not had to
an NCP and probably have some misconceptions regarding
technical points. An official version will be released on March 26.
The Guide will then be a unique series of documents, separate
NWG/RFCs (as is the Document No. 1, No. 2 series).

With regard to renumbering NWG/RFCs, I am inclined to keep
sequential numbering scheme presently employed. The main reason
this position is that the current numbers have both historical
semantic significance. For example, reference to "#33, #66, #83,
etc." is a convenient shorthand (reminiscent of the old corny
about joke #s) used extensively during meetings. The list
"current status" NWG/RFC numbers should dispel any fear
maintaining stacks of NWG/RFCs for quick reference. The subject
not closed, however, and I will entertain any objections
suggestions, etc

GUIDE TO NETWORK WORKING GROUP/REQUEST FOR

The NWG/RFC notes are partitioned into 9 categories, which in
are divided into subcategories. For each category the
document (if any), unresolved issues, and documents to be
are identified

Karp [Page 1]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

For each subcategory, relevant NWG/RFCs are listed and a
description of the topics addressed in each note is given

The categories are again listed and the current NWG/RFCs
(p. 23). The NWG/RFCs in the list comprise the subset
"current status". Note that most of the documentation in the
addresses topics in Category D - Subsystem Level Protocol, where
the present time most issues are unresolved

Finally, the NWG/RFCs are listed by number, with a reference to
relevant categories (p. 26).

A.

A.1 Distribution

NWG/RFC #s: 3, 10, 16, 24, 27, 30, 37, 52, 69, 95

The distribution list contains names, addresses, and phone
for recipients of NWG/RFCs. The most recent list, NWG/RFC 95,
designates the Technical Liaison as the recipient for each site
supersedes all other RFCs in this category

A.2 Meeting

NWG/RFC #s: 35, 43, 45, 54, 75, 85, 87, 99

General network working group meetings are held approximately
three months. Special subcommittee meetings are held on an ad
basis. All related NWG/RFCs are obsolete except 87, announcing
graphics meeting to be held at MIT in April and 99, announcing
general NWG meeting, Atlantic City, May 16-20.

A.3 Meeting

NWG/RFC #s: 21, 37, 63, 77, 82

The meeting minutes present highlights of issues discussed at
NWG meetings and report definite decisions that are made

To be published: A NWG/RFC will be published by Dick Watson, SRI
reporting on the NWG meeting held at the University of Illinois
February 17-19.

Karp [Page 2]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

A.4 Guide to NWG/

NWG/RFC #s: 84, 100

The NWG/RFC Guide categorizes the NWG/RFC notes, identifies
under discussion, the relevant NWG/RFCs, and denotes whether
notes are current, obsolete, or superseded. Included in
category are lists of NWG/RFCs, ordered by number (as in 84) and/
by author

A.5

NWG/RFC #s: 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 37, 41, 48, 53, 54, 72, 73, 77, 82,
102

NWG/RFCs categorized as policy contain official stands on
i.e., the position taken by S. Crocker, NWG Chairman. The
covered are varied

In particular

77 and 82 discuss meeting policy

72, 73, 77, and 82 discuss the decision to delay making changes
the Host/Host protocol in order to first gain experience with
network. A committee to propose specific changes has been formed

37 discusses changes to the Host/Host protocol and the schedule
introducing modifications

53 sets forth the mechanism for establishing and modifying
official Host/Host protocol

54 presents the initial official protocol

48 presents some suggestions for policy on some outstanding issues

41 requests the tagging of IMP-IMP teletype messages

Documentation conventions for NWG/RFCs are given in 24, 27, and 30.

25 and 18 designate uses for particular link numbers. 25 has
superseded by 37 and 48. 18 is obsolete

102 discusses the issuing of Document #2, in lieu of the
modification procedure outlined in 53.

Karp [Page 3]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

B. HOST/IMP PROTOCOL (LEVEL 1)

Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822 (latest revision -
1971)

Unresolved issues: Location of first byte of data in a message

To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker
will, among other things, resolve the first byte location issue

B.1 General

NWG/RFC #s: 17, 17a, 19, 21, 33, 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 102

In particular

17 raised several questions regarding HOST/IMP protocol. In 17a,
responds to the questions

19 proposes that the hosts control the ordering of IMP/Host
rather than getting messages delivered in the order received by
IMP. This proposal is counter to BBN's position,
expressed in 47; that is, buffering is a Host rather than an
function. The purpose of buffering in the IMP is to handle surges
traffic, thus IMP buffers should be empty. NWG/RFC 19 is obsolete

21 discusses changes to BBN Memo No. 1822. The remarks are obsolete

33 contains a general description of the interface between a host
the IMP. NWG/RFC 47 comments on NWG/RFC 33.

The use of RFNMs (type 10 and type 5 messages) to control flow
discussed in NWG/RFCs 36, 37 and 46. The official position in "
on link" (i.e., discontinue the mechanism) is presented in 102
renders obsolete the remarks in 36, 37, and 46.

38 discusses the changes to message format that would be necessary
multiplexing connections over links was allowed

Karp [Page 4]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

B.2 Marking/

NWG/RFC #s: 44, 48, 49, 50, 54, 64, 65, 67, 70, 102

In particular

102 presents the decision of the Host/Host protocol committee
abandon the marking convention and to ignore padding. The issue
whether to have the first data byte begin after 72 bits of header
to use double physical transmission (NWG/RFC #s 65, 67) is discussed

The former official position is expressed in 54: "All
messages consist of a 32 bit leader, marking, text, and padding
Marking is a (possibly null) sequence of zeros followed by a 1;
padding is a 1 followed by a (possibly null) sequence of zeros."

Several proposals to eliminate marking have been made. 64 suggests
hardware modification to eliminate marking/padding by
appropriate counters to Host/IMP interfaces. 65 suggests
regular messages into two messages. 67 supports 65. 72 and 73
that such changes be postponed until sufficient experience with
network is gained

44 introduces the notion of double padding and presents
alternative approaches when a message does not end on a Host
boundary

a) The host provides padding in addition to the IMPS ("
padding")

b) The host shifts messages to end on a word boundary

48 explains double padding in more detail and discusses the pros
cons. A suggestion is made to use marking to adjust the
baundary (alternative b). NWG/RFCs 49 and 50 are concurrences
48.

70 presents a method to handle the stripping of padding from
message

All NWG/RFCs in this category have been superseded by 102.

C. HOST/HOST PROTOCOL (LEVEL 2)

Host/Host protocol specifies the procedures by which connections
inter-Host interprocess communication over the network
established, maintained, and terminated. The software
implements the protocol within each Host is called the

Karp [Page 5]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

Control Program (NCP). The topics included in this category
connection establishment and termination, flow control,
handling, error control and status testing, dynamic reconnection,
the relationship between connections and links

Official documents: Document No. 1 by S. Crocker, 3 August 1970,
modifications presented in NWG/RFC 102.

Unresolved issues: Length of control
Location in message of first byte of
Flow control
Socket identification

To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker
will resolve the first three issues. A NWG/RFC will be written by J
Heafner, in collaboration with E. Meyer and G. Grossman.
the pros and cons on alternative proposals for socket
identification

C.1 Host/Host Protocol

NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50,
54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 93, 102

The official Host/Host protocol presented in Document No. 1 is
on the proposals, discussions, acceptance, and rejection of ideas
the above list of NWG/RFCs, up to and including 59.

In particular

9, 11, and 22 represent an early attempt at a Host/Host protocol. 11
supersedes 9 and 22 contains some modifications to control
formats presented in 11. The protocol was not considered
enough because it didn't provide for inter-host communication
logging in. This protocol was thrown out as a result of a
meeting in December 1969.

33 is the basis for the current protocol. It was presented at
SJCC, 1970.

36 is a modification of 33. It discusses connection
without switching, flow control, and introduces the idea
reconnection. Control commands are summarized. 36 was distributed
a Network meeting in March 1970.

Karp [Page 6]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

37 presents the reaction to 36 and presents ideas on
flow control and decoupling of links and connections. Provisions
error detection, status testing, experimentation and expansions
discussed

38, 39, 40, 44, 49 and 50 are comments written in response to
meeting. 46 is also a comment but in the form of a rewrite of 33. 46
introduces the notion of interrupts, INT, and ECO for status testing

47 concerns the philosophy behind the notion of a link

48 summarizes the issues discussed in the above NWG/RFCs

54 is the initial official protocol submitted for criticism
comments, etc. It introduces a new mechanism for flow control
which the receiving host allocates buffer space and notifies
sending host of the space available

57 and 59 comment on 54.

Document No. 1 differs from NWG/RFC 54 as follows: commands GVB
RET have been added for flow control and error condition codes
been added to ERR. NWG/RFC 102 presents some modifications
Document No. 1: fixed lengths are specified for ECO, ERP, and ERR;
new pair of commands RST and RRP (suggested in 57) are added

60, 61, and 62 propose new Host/Host protocols, quite different
the current official protocol. 62 supersedes 61. 60 and 62 are
considering for possible implementation in future protocols
Hopefully, more documents of a similar nature will be generated
experience is gained with the current protocol

NWG/RFCs 65 and 68 comment on Document No. 1.

93 points out an ambiguity in Document No. 1 regarding
requirement of a message data type in the message sent from
socket 1. The ambiguity is resolved by 102 which eliminates
data type from level 2 protocol

C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques

NWG/RFC #s: 9, 11, 22, 23, 33, 36, 44, 46, 48, 55, 70, 71, 74, 89

This category includes RFCs which give details of system calls,
structures, implementation techniques, etc

Karp [Page 7]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

In particular

NWG/RFCs 9, 11, and 22 are

23 is a general statement on sending or receiving multiple
messages in a single communication

33 discusses the system calls used for interaction between the
and a user process

36 describes a possible implementation giving table structures
their interrelationships

44 lists the system calls that SDC feels should operate,
spec. of calls to NCP

NWG/RFC 48 presents Postel's and Crocker's view on the environment
which a host time-sharing system operates, suggests some
calls, and presents a design to illustrate the components of an NCP

55 presents a prototypical NCP which implements the initial
protocol specified in 54. It is offered as an illustrative example

70 gives some techniques for stripping the padding from a message

71 presents the method employed by the CCN-Host at UCLA
resynchronize flow control when an input error occurs

74 documents the implementation of sections of the NCP at UCSB

89 gives a brief description of the "interim interim NCP" (IINCP)
the MIT Dynamic Modeling PDP-6/10 used to run some experiments

C.3 Connection Establishment and

NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 50, 54, 60, 62

The NWG/RFCs in this category present the system calls and
commands used to establish and terminate connections, i.e.,
handshaking that must transpire before connections are established
terminated

In particular

36 presents a rough scenario of connection establishment
differs from that specified in 33 in that establishment does
include procedures for switching procedures

Karp [Page 8]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

39 suggests the addition of a command TER to supplement CLS

44 discusses the use of the CLS command and suggests that
commands BLS and CLS be adopted

46, 46, and 50 all discuss queuing of RFCs

54 presents the initial official method for establishing
terminating connections

60 and 62 present schemes different from the official protocol

C.4 Flow

NWG/RFC #s: 19, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47, 54, 59, 60, 65, 68, 102

The NWG/RFCs in this category address the problem of controlling
flow of messages from the sending socket to the receive socket.
official position is stated in Document No. 1 with an
issue pending as described in NWG/RFC 102.

In particular

19 suggests that Hosts may want the capability of agreeing to
programs into core for more efficient core-to-core transfers.
may require different handling of RFNMs

33 describes the use of RFNM (type 10 rather than 5) on a link
control flow. A control command RSM (resume) is defined to allow
host to signal for resumption of message flow. 46 describes the
technique

37 describes the effect some proposed changes (for reconnect
decoupling of connections and links) would have on RFNMs and "
on link."

46 (MIT's rewrite of protocol) introduces BLK and RSM commands as
alternative to "cease on link", SPD and RSM commands

47 presents BBN's position that buffering be handled by the Host,
the IMP

54 introduces a new flow control mechanism in which the
host is required to allocate buffer space for each connection and
notify the sending host of bit sizes. A new command, ALL to
space is sent from the receiving host to the sending host. With
new mechanism, 33, 37, 46, and 47 become obsolete

Karp [Page 9]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

59 presents the objections of Project MAC and Lincoln Labs to
flow control mechanism introduced in 54. Their preference is
"cease on link" which allocates buffer space on demand

60, which defines a simplified NCP protocol, presents a method
flow control based on the requirement that connections are
duplex

65 comments on Document No. 1. With respect to flow control,
disagrees with the allocation mechanism and the introduction
irregular message to make the cease mechanism work

68 proposes modifications to RFNM by defining three forms which
insure control of data and would replace the memory
mechanism

102 eliminates the cease mechanism and introduces
modifications to the flow control mechanism. The latter will
resolved and presented in Document No. 2.

C.5 Error Control and Status

NWG/RFC #s: 2, 37, 39, 40, 46, 48, 54, 57, 102

This category addresses schemes for detecting and controlling
and for Host status reporting and testing

In particular

2 talks about error checking and gives an algorithm for
a checksum. It also recommends that Hosts should have a mode
which positive verification of all messages is required

37 brings up the topics of error detection and status testing,
are expanded by RAND in 39 and 40. 39 introduces control commands
for error checking and QRY, HCU, and HGD for status testing. 40
expands on the discussion, suggests error codes, introduces RPY as
response to QRY, and suggests that NOP could be used for
Host status

46 concurs with 40 on ERR and introduces ECO to test
between NCPs

48 recommends that ERR, as presented in 40 and 46, be adopted, that
distinction be made between resource errors and other error types
that ECO, presented in 46, be of variable length, and that an ECO
ERP command pair be adopted

Karp [Page 10]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

54 officially specifies the control commands ERR, ECO, and ERP.
official protocol doesn't include a specific list of error types
does it recommend the action to be taken. Suggestions for
to error detection and recovery and Host/Host status testing
encouraged

57 presents a list of error types and suggests new commands OVF
overflow errors and RST/RSR for host status testing

102 sets fixed lengths for ERR, ECO, and ERP control commands.
and RSR are adopted

C.6

NWG/RFC #s: 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 102

The interrupt system call and the INT control commands are used
interrupt a process. This is actually a third level issue.
NWG/RFCs leading up to the decision to include INR and INS in
official protocol are summarized below

In particular

46 introduces the INT command as a method for interrupting a process

48 recommends adoption of INT with the restriction that the
should not be used during communication with systems which scan
interrupts and that INT should not be used on non-console
connections (see D.2).

49 expands on the explanation of INT. 50 concurs with proposal 46,
that INT is useful

54 induces INT, INS control commands in the official protocol as
escape mechanism, where interpretation is a local matter

102 discusses synchronization of interrupt signals, presents
implementation schemes, and relegates the topic to third
protocol. INS should be used to indicate a special code in the
stream

C.7 Dynamic

NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50

The notion of dynamic reconnection was introduced early in
Host/Host protocol design. However, the consensus was that
introduced complexities with which the initial NCP

Karp [Page 11]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

did not want to cope. The need for dynamic reconnection
questioned; NWG/RFC 48 explains why it was included and
useful

In particular

33 introduces the concept of switching connections to the Logger. 36
presents a scheme for dynamic reconnection, i.e., reconnection
take place after the flow is started

37 presents two methods suggested by BBN for handling reconnection

38 discusses changes to proposed END and RDY control commands
would be necessary if connections were multiplexed over links

39 states that dynamic reconnection is too complex

44 presents two cases where reconnection could be used, suggests
the cases be separated, and recommends implementation of only
case of a simple connection switch within the same Host

46 recommends that dynamic reconnection be reserved for
Host/Host protocol implementations

48 discusses the aesthetics of dynamic reconnection in detail
concedes that it won't be included in the initial protocol. 49 and 50
concur with the decision

C.8 Relation Between Connections and

NWG/RFC #s: 37, 38, 44, 48

A connection is an extension of a link. The NWG/RFCs in
category discuss this relationship

In particular

37 presents the pros and cons on decoupling connections and links. 38
recommends that connections be multiplexed over links. Two
where this would be useful are presented. The effect on the
protocol is discussed. Both 37 and 38 suggest the inclusion of
destination socket as part of the text of the message and
that messages should be send over any unblocked link

44 suggests the use of link numbers in control commands (except RFSs
due to the 1 to 1 correspondence between links and foreign
numbers

Karp [Page 12]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

48 recommends leaving links and connections coupled

C.9

Other topics that fall into the category of Host/Host protocol are

Marking/Padding: see B.2

Record/Message Boundaries: see D.5

Experimentation and Expansion. The assignment of links
experimentation and expansion is discussed in NWG/RFC #s 37 and 48.

Instance Tag: The addition of an instance tag to the
identifier is introduced in 46, is supported by 49 and 50, and is
recommended in 48. The matter is unresolved (see "To be published",
section C).

Broadcast Facility: A control command to implement a
facility as introduced in 39. It was not supported in 48.

D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL (LEVEL 3)

Official document:

Unresolved issues:

To be published: Three committees have been set up to address
level issues, specifically: logger, console, and TELNET
(D.1, D.2, D.3); data transformation (D.4); and, graphics
(D.6). Status reports will be published prior to the next
meeting (May 1971). In addition, a companion paper to 98
console protocol has been promised by MIT MAC and G. Grossman (Ill.)
will issue an RFC proposing a file transmission protocol

D.1 Logger

NWG/RFC #s: 33, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 79, 82, 88, 91, 93,
97, 98

Logger Protocol specifies the procedures by which a user
connected to a remote Host. The logger is a process, always
execution, which listens for login requests

Karp [Page 13]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

In particular

33 proposes that the logger listen to calls on socket #0. It
switches to the assigned socket. The sequence of events
illustrated

46 proposes a User Control and Communication (UCC) module,
implements logger protocol and permits the logger to interact
the NCP. It proposes the use of two full-duplex pseudo-
connections

48 proposes that sockets and designate either
input and output sockets of a copy of the logger or the
sockets

49 is a write-up of a combination of the proposals presented in 46
and 48. 49 presents the disadvantages of the new proposal and
back to supporting the UCC of 46.

50 indicates RAND support for the UCC presented in 46.

56 defines a send-logger and a receive-logger with a full-
connection. The logger handles one request at a time; requests
queued. The receiver logger is identified as user 0 on socket 0.

66 introduces a dial-up protocol (Initial Connection Protocol, ICP
to get a process at one site in contact with the logger at
site

74 documents the logger implemented at UCSB

77 and 82 report the discussion of logger protocol at the FJCC 1970
Network meeting. E. Harslem and E. Meyer agreed to write proposals

79 discusses a conflict between Document No. 1 and NWG/RFC 66
regarding the use of ALL prior to connection establishment

80 presents a variation of 66 that rectifies the conflict. 80
suggests that ICP should apply to more than just the logger i.e.,
user 0 signify the logger

88 documents the logger implemented as part of NETRJS, which
access to RJS at UCLA's CCN. The ICP described in 66 and 80
adhered to. The logger is designated as user 0.

91 contains a description of the logger for the PDP-10 at Harvard

Karp [Page 14]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

93 points out an ambiguity in the Host/Host protocol of Document No
1 regarding the requirement of message data type for ICP.
ambiguity is rectified by NG/RFC 102.

97 includes the ICP (as proposed in 80) used to establish
to NIC

98 is the logger protocol proposal issued by E. Meyer

D.2 Console

NWG/RFC #s: 20, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 74, 77, 82, 88, 91, 96,
97, 98

Console protocol will specify conventions for what goes out over
network. Included are conventions for echoing, character set
interrupt or break, end of line, message formats

In particular

20 suggests a standard of 7-bit ASCII in an 8-bit byte, with the
order bit 0.

44 discusses three possibilities for echoing over the
(echoing, no echoing, optional echoing) and states a preference
no echoing. 44 also states a preference for establishing a
common code where all code conversion is performed on outgoing text
thus, all incoming text would be in the common code

46 proposes the use of interrupt on the third level. An
means "quit" when sent from a requestor process to a created process
The command level is entered

48 and 49 relegate issues of echoing and code conversion to
level protocol

50 and 56 support adoption of ASCII for the network
character set. 56 also discusses two uses of break
(interrupt): in a panic situation and to exit from subsystem.
message formats (character by character, end by carriage return
several command lines per message) are discussed. A
that echoing be handled locally is made

66 specifies that the standard console use 7-bit ASCII in 8 bits
the 8th bit on (note the conflict with 20). It also specifies
use of INR for break or interrupt

74 documents console protocol implemented by UCSB

Karp [Page 15]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

77 and 82 report on console protocol topics (echoing, full vs
duplex) discussed at the Network meeting, FJCC 1970.

88 documents conventions used by NETRJS for RJS at CCN, UCLA

91 discusses code standards

96 and 97 document conventions used for NIC at SRI ARC

98 proposes specifications for general console communications
addresses full vs half duplex, character escapes, and
characters

D.3 TELNET

NWG/RFC #s: 15, 33, 76, 80, 83, 91, 96, 97

TELNET is a subsystem permitting a teletype-like terminal at a
Host for function as a teletype at the serving Host. TELNET
specifies user level interface to the network by way of
system calls

In particular

15 introduces the TELNET concept and presents a sample
between Utah's PDP-10 and SRI's 940. System primitives are proposed

33 describes TELNET and gives essentially the same example as in 15.

76 describes a terminal user control language for Illinois's PDP-11
ARPA Network Terminal System. The protocol defined permits the
to utilize the network at a symbolic level

80 and 83 introduce the concept of a Protocol Manager that can
protocol sequences between consoles and the network. The
Machine (see D.4) can be used for translations

91 contains a proposal for a User/User protocol that has the
to function as TELNET

96 describes a series of experiments to be conducted using the
subsystem at SRI ARC

97 presents a detailed proposal for a standard TELNET protocol

Karp [Page 16]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

D.4 NIL, DEL, and Form

NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 42, 51, 63, 80, 83, 96

NIL, DEL, and Form Machines are proposals of similar methods
adapting user programs and/or data to the network. A
chaired by J. Heafner has been formed to plan, implement,
exercise a language for reconfiguring data streams

In particular

NIL (Network Interchange Language), described in 51, introduces
concept of an abstract network machine which would permit a user
consider the computer network as an overall computing facility.
dialogue would take place between hosts and the network machine.
permits the description of the environment and the description of
Front End of an interactive system. Sublanguages for
control, operation, data declaration, and environment are used.
NIL, the network machine can operate in standard mode as well
user-defined extended mode. The network machine can act as a user
a Host; conversely, a Host can be a user of a network machine.
Host will have a generator to generate a translator from
descriptive sublanguage inputs

DEL (Decode - Encode Language), described in 5, utilizes a front
translator at the using site to translate the using site
to the server host character set. Return messages are
translated locally to the local standard. Immediate feedback in
interactive mode is also handled locally. DEL can be used for
operation of large display-oriented systems. Provisions are
for representing a universal hardware. The syntax is included

Two proposals for the Form Machine have been given. 80 introduces
concept of the Form Machine, an experimental software
operating on regular expressions that describe data formats. 83
presents a different approach: a syntax-driven interpreter
operates on a grammar which is an _ordered_ set of replacement rules
83 contains a description of the Form Machine with some examples
replacement rules for particular data types. Application of
Form-Machine to program protocols is also discussed

31 proposes a message description language as a standard
method for defining and describing binary messages. In the future
the descriptive language could be used as input to generators of
translation programs

42 proposes the use of message data types prior to the development
network languages specifying the syntax and semantics of messages

Karp [Page 17]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

Programs would extract the message data type and transform the
accordingly. Both standard and local types would be handled (as
RFC #51), probably using tables stored at one location such as NIC
62 presents data typed codes

96 includes a discussion on a Front End for NLS (T) and suggests
further study be given to standard languages as presented in 51.

D.5 Record/Message

NWG/RFC #s: 13, 49, 50, 58, 63, 77, 82, 91

Positions that no special structures should be imposed on
transmission are presented in 49 and 91. 50 and 58 disagree. 58
claims that logical and physical message distinctions exist and
logical messages must begin on a physical message boundary

63 reports a decision from a meeting that records may begin
in a message. In a later meeting, 77 and 82, the issue was reopened
Discussion included consideration of methods of indicating the end
message and alternatives were given. Earlier RFCs had
these alternatives: 13 proposes a 0 length message to specify EOF; 50
proposes use of a bit count preceding the transmission and
solutions to the problem of dropping bits

D.6 Network

NWG/RFC #s: 43, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 94

Proposals specifying network graphics protocol are in the
stages

In particular

43 mentions LIL, in interpretable language at Lincoln Labs that
handle interactive graphics

77 and 82 discuss the formation of a working group to
procedures for using graphics over the network

80 states that graphics oriented descriptions will added to the
Machine

86 is a proposal for a network standard format for a data stream
control graphics displays. 87 announces a network graphics meeting
be hosted by MIT and suggests discussion topics. Both 86 and 87
attempts to stimulate some interest in the generation of
protocol proposals

Karp [Page 18]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

89 describes a Harvard-MIT graphics experiment using the network

94 comments on 8 and presents an alternate proposal

D.7 File

NWG/RFC #s: 13, 38, 77, 82, 91

The subject of file transmission over the network is at the
discussion stage. Nothing substantive has been published as NWG/
om this category

In particular

13 proposes using a 0 length message to specify EOF

38 recommends routing multiple connections over the same link
handle file transmissions over the network

77 and 82 summarize comments on file transmission problems aired
the Network meeting in Houston, Nov. 1970.

91 describes how PDP-10 file transmission could be handled over
network

E. MEASUREMENT ON

Official document:

Unresolved issues: Should NCPs be altered to keep
statistics

E.1

NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82

Both 77 and 82 report on the comments made at the Network meeting
Houston 1970, regarding network measurements. UCLA and BBN
officially responsible for gathering network statistics. Is
reasonable to alter the NCP to keep statistics

E.2

NWG/RFC #s: 28, 29, 32, 34

The NWG/RFCs in this category discuss requirements for a clock
measure network delay

Karp [Page 19]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

In particular

28 is concerned with the installation of a real-time clock at SRI
and requests comments concerning network time standards for
measurement

29 responds to 28, stating that a millisecond clock should
sufficient

32 discusses the desirability of adding a network clock
measurement of user-oriented message delays. A one
resolution is a reasonable specification. The problems of
synchronization and long term accuracy are addressed

34 describes the SRI ARC clock on the XDS 940.

F. NETWORK

NWG/RFC #s 78, 89

Reports on experience with the network are starting to be published
As sites begin to get their NCPs up, more notes in this
should be generated and are encouraged

In particular

78 describes NCP checkout between UCSB and RAND

89 describes initial activity on the network between MIT MAC
Modelling/Computer Graphics PDP-6/10 System and the Harvard PDP-10.

G. SITE

Official document.

Unresolved issues: Procedures for entering documentation at NIC

To be published. Dick Watson, SRI ARC, will publish
specifications and procedures

G.1

NWG/RFC #s 77, 82

77 and 82 contain general comments on storing system
on-line

Karp [Page 20]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

G.2

NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97

77 and 82 contain summaries of Engelbart's discussion of NIC at
Network meeting in Houston, November, 1970.

96 and 97 contain details of third level protocol implementation
NLS (NIC).

G.3

NWG/RFC #s: 74

74 presents specifications for network use of the UCSB On-Line
(OLS).

G.4 CCN (UCLA

NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90

88 describes the protocol implementation for RJE

90 specifies the resources available at CCN, operating as a
Service Center

G.5 University of

NWG/RFC #s: 76

76 describes the PDP-11 ARPA Network Terminal System implementation

H.

To be published: B. Kahn, BBN, will generate an RFC
important considerations for an accounting mechanism

NWG.RFC #s: 77, 82

This topic will be addressed by the long-range Host/Host
committee, set up at the Network meeting, University of Illinois
February 1971.

77 and 82 discuss the need for some network accounting scheme
primarily for sites classified as Service Centers rather
Research Centers

Karp [Page 21]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

I.

The topics grouped in this catch-all category may in the
constitute independent categories

I.1

NWG/RFC #s: 12, 64

12 contains diagrams that indicate the logical sequence of
operations which occur within the IMP/Host interface

64 proposes a hardware solution to getting rid of marking. 64
been superseded by 102.

I.2 Request for

NWG/RFC #s: 81

81 requests references concerning communications

Karp [Page 22]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

Issues and Current NWG/

Subset reflecting current status

NWG/RFC #s: 5, 12, 30-33, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53-56, 60, 62, 66, 74,
76-78, 80-83, 86-91, 94-100, 102

A.

A.1 Distribution
NWG/RFC #s: 95

A.2 Meeting
NWG/RFC #s: 87, 99

A.3 Meeting
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82

A.4 Guide to NWG/
NWG/RFC #s: 100

A.5
NWG/RFC #s: 30, 41, 53, 77, 82, 102

B. HOST/IMP

Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822

B.1
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 47, 102

B.2 Marking/
NWG/RFC #s: 102

C. HOST/HOST

Official document: Document No. 1, S. Crocker, 3 August 1970

C.1 Host/Host Protocol
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 48, 54, 60, 62, 102

C.2 NCPs (Description, Structure, Techniques
NWG/RFC #s: 55, 74

C.3 Connection Establishment and
NWG/RFC #s: 54

C.4 Flow

Karp [Page 23]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC #s: 54 102

C.5 Error Control and Status
NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102

C.6
NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102

C.7 Dynamic
NWG/RFC #s: 47

C.8 Relation Between Connections and
NWG/RFC #s: 48

D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL

D.1 Logger
NWG/RFC #s: 56, 66, 80,98

D.2 Console
NWG/RFC #s: 66, 77, 82, 96, 97, 98

D.3 TELNET
NWG/RFC #s: 33, 96, 97

D.4 NIL, DEL, Form
NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 51, 83

D.5 Record/Message
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91

D.6 Network
NWG/RFC #s: 86, 87, 94

D.7 File
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91

E. MEASUREMENT ON

E.1
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82

E.2
NWG/RFC #s: 32

F. NETWORK

NWG/RFC #s: 78, 89

Karp [Page 24]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

G. SITE

G.1
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82

G.2
NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97

G.3
NWG/RFC #s: 74

G.4 CCN (UCLA
NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90

G.5
NWG/RFC #s: 76

H.

NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82

I.

I.1
NWG/RFC #s: 12

I.2 Request for
NWG/RFC #s: 81

Karp [Page 25]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

List of NWG/RFC #'s 1-102 With Cross-Reference to Categorized

NWG/RFC 1: HOST
S. Crocker (UCLA) 7 April 1969

NWG/RFC 2: HOST
B. Duvall (SRI) 9 April 1969

C.5, otherwise

NWG/RFC 3: Documentation
S. Crocker (UCLA) 9 April 1969

A.1

NWG/RFC 4: Network
E. Shapiro (SRI) 24 March 1969

*NWG/RFC 5:
J. Rulifson (SRI) 2 June 1969

D.4

NWG/RFC 6: Conversation with Bob
S. Crocker (UCLA) 10 April 1969

NWG/RFC 7: HOST/IMP
G. Deloche (UCLA) 5 May 1969

NWG/RFC 8: ARPA Network Functional
G. Deloche (UCLA) 5 May 1969

*indicates inclusion in the subset of "current issues".

Karp [Page 26]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 9: HOST
G. Deloche (UCLA) 1 May 1969

C.1 C.2

NWG/RFC 10: Documentation
S. Crocker 29 July 1969

A.1

NWG/RFC 11: Implementation of the HOST-HOST Software Procedures

G. Deloche (UCLA) 1 August 1969

C.1 C.2

*NWG/RFC 12: IMP/HOST Interface Flow
M. Wingfield (UCLA) 26 August 1969

I.1

NWG/RFC 13: Referring to NWG/RFC 11
V. Cerf (UCLA) 20 August 1969

D.5 D.7

NWG/RFC 14: (never issued

NWG/RFC 15: Network Subsystem for Time-Sharing
C. S. Carr (UTAH) 25 September 1969

D.3

NWG/RFC 16: MIT (address
S. Crocker 27 August 1969

A.1

NWG/RFC 17 & Some Questions Re: HOST-IMP
17
J. E. Kreznar (SDC) 27 August 1969

B.1

NWG/RFC 18: (use of links 1 and 2)
V. Cerf (UCLA) September 1969

A.5

Karp [Page 27]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 19: Two Protocol Suggestions to
Congestion at Swap-bound
J. E. Kreznar (SDC) 7 October 1969

B.1 C.4

NWG/RFC 20: ASCII Format for Network
V. Cerf (UCLA) 10 October 1969

D.2

NWG/RFC 21: (report of Network meeting
V. Cerf (UCLA) 17 October 1969

A.3 B.1

NWG/RFC 22: HOST-HOST Control Message
V. Cerf (UCLA) 17 October 1969

C.1 C.2

NWG/RFC 23: Transmission of Multiple Control
G. Gregg (UCSB) 16 October 1969

C.2

NWG/RFC 24: Documentation
S. Crocker (UCLA) 21 November 1969

A.1 A.5

NWG/RFC 25: No High Link
S. Crocker (UCLA) 30 October 1969

A.5

NWG/RFC 26: (never issued

NWG/RFC 27: Documentation
S. Crocker (UCLA) 6 December 1969

A.1 A.5

NWG/RFC 28: Time
B. English (ARC) 13 January 1970

E.1

Karp [Page 28]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 29: Note in Response to Bill English'
Request for
R. Kahn (BBN) 19 January 1970

E.1

NWG/RFC 30: Documentation
S. Crocker (UCLA) 4 February 1970

A.1 A.5

*NWG/RFC 31: Binary Message Forms in Computer
D. Borrow (BBN
W.R. Sutherland (LINC) February 1968

D.4

*NWG/RFC 32: Connecting M.I.T. Computers to the
Computer-to-Computer Communication
D. Vedder (MAC) 31 January 1969

E.1

*NWG/RFC 33: New HOST-HOST
S. Crocker (UCLA) 12 February 1970

B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7 D.1 D.3

NWG/RFC 34: Some Brief Preliminary Notes on the ARC
B. English (ARC) 26 February 1970

E.1

NWG/RFC 35: Network
S. Crocker (UCLA) 3 March 1970

A.2

NWG/RFC 36: Protocol
S. Crocker (UCLA) 16 March 1970

B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.7

Karp [Page 29]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 37: Network Meeting Epilogue, etc
S. Crocker (UCLA) 20 March 1970

A.1 A.3 B.1 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.7 C.8 C.9

NWG/RFC 38: Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC 36
S.M. Wolfe (UCLA) 20 March 1970

B.1 C.1 C.7 C.8 D.7

NWG/RFC 39: Comments on Protocol Re: NWG/RFC 36
E. Harslem (RAND
J. Heafner (RAND) 25 March 1970

C.1 C.3 C.5 C.7 C.9

NWG/RFC 40: More Comments on the Forthcoming
E. Harslem (RAND
J. Heafner (RAND) 27 March 1970

C.1 C.5

*NWG/RFC 41: IMP-IMP Teletype
J. Melvin (ARC) 30 March 1970

A.5

NWG/RFC 42: Message Data
E. I. Ancona (LINC) 31 March 1970

D.4

NWG/RFC 43: Proposed
A. G. Nemeth (LINC) 8 April 1970

A.2 D.6

NWG/RFC 44: Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36
A. Shohani (SDC
R. Long (SDC
A. Kandsberg (SDC) 10 April 1970

B.2 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.7 C.8 D.2

Karp [Page 30]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 45: New Protocol is
J. Postel (UCLA
S. Crocker (UCLA) 14 April 1970

A.2

NWG/RFC 46: ARPA Network Protocol
E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC) 17 April 1970

B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 D.1

*NWG/RFC 47: BBN's Comments on NWG/RFC 33
J. Postel (UCLA
S. Crocker (UCLA) 20 April 1970

B.1 C.4

*NWG/RFC 48: A Possible Protocol
J. Postel (UCLA
S. Crocker (UCLA) 21 April 1970

A.5 B.2 C.1 C.2 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2

NWG/RFC 49: Conversations with Steve
E. W. Meyer Jr. (MAC) 25 April 1970

B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5

NWG/RFC 50: Comments on the Meyer
E. Harslem (RAND
J. Heafner (RAND) 30 April 1970

B.2 C.1 C.3 C.6 C.7 C.9 D.1 D.2 D.5

*NWG/RFC 51: Proposal for a Network Interchange
M. Elie (UCLA) 4 May 1970

D.4

NWG/RFC 52: Updated Distribution
S. Crocker, J. Postel 1 July 1970

A.1

*NWG/RFC 53: An Official Protocol
S. Crocker (UCLA) 9 June 1970

A.5

Karp [Page 31]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

*NWG/RFC 54: An Official Protocol
S. Crocker (UCLA) 18 June 1970

A.2 A.5 B.2 C.1 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6

*NWG/RFC 55: A Prototypical Implementation of the
J. Newkirk, et al (HARV) 19 June 1970

C.2

*NWG/RFC 56: Third Level
E. Belove, et al (HARV) 19 June 1970

D.1 D.2

NWG/RFC 57: Thoughts and Reflections on NWG/RFC 54
M. Kraley, J. Newkirk (HARV) 19 June 1970

C.1 C.5

NWG/RFC 58: Logical Message
T. P. Skinner (MAC) 26 June 1970

D.5

NWG/RFC 59: Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand
E. W. Meyer Jr. 27 June 1970

C.1 C.4

*NWG/RFC 60: A Simplified NCP
R. Kalin (LINC) 13 July 1970

C.1 C.3 C.4

NWG/RFC 61: A Note on Interprocess Communications in a
Sharing Computer
D. Walden (BBN) 17 July 1970

superseded by 62

*NWG/RFC 62: A Note on Interprocess Communications in a
Sharing Computer Network Sharing Computer
D. Walden (BBN) 3 August 1970

C.1 C.3

Karp [Page 32]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 63: Belated Network Meeting
V. Cerf (UCLA) 31 July 1970

A.3 D.4 D.5

NWG/RFC 64: Getting Rid of
M. Elie (undated

B.2 H.2

NWG/RFC 65: Comments on Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1
(by S. Crocker - 8/3/70)
D. Walden (BBN) 29 August 1970

B.2 C.1 C.4

*NWG/RFC 66: 3rd level Ideas and Other
S. Crocker (UCLA) 26 August 1970

D.1 D.2

NWG/RFC 67: Proposed Changes to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate
W. Crowther (BBN) (undated

B.2

NWG/RFC 68: Comments on Memory Allocation Control
(CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and
M. Elie (UCLA) 31 August 1970

NWG/RFC 69: Distribution List Change for
A. Bhushan (MAC) 22 September 1970

A.1

NWG/RFC 70: A Note on
S. Crocker (UCLA) 15 October 1970

B.2 C.2

NWG/RFC 71: Reallocation in Case of Input
T. Schipper (UCLA) 25 September 1970

C.2

Karp [Page 33]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

NWG/RFC 72: Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network
R.D. Bressler (MAC) 28 September 1970

A.5

NWG/RFC 73: Response to NWG/RFC 67
S. Crocker (UCLA) 25 September 1970

A.5

*NWG/RFC 74: Specification for Network Use of the UCSB On-

J. White 16 October 1970

D.1 D.2 G.3

NWG/RFC 75: Network
S. Crocker (UCLA) 14 October 1970

A.2

*NWG/RFC 76: Connection-By-Name: User-Oriented
J. Bouknight et al., (ILL) 28 October 1970

D.3 G.5

*NWG/RFC 77: Network Meeting
J. Postel (UCLA) 20 November 1970

A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2

*NWG/RFC 78: NCP Status Report: UCSB/
E. Harslem et al., (RAND) (undated

NWG/RFC 79: Logger Protocol
E. W. Meyer, Jr. (MAC) 16 November 1970

D.1

*NWG/RFC 80: Protocols and Data
E. Harslem et al., (RAND) 1 December 1970

D.3 D.4 D.6

Karp [Page 34]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

*NWG/RFC 81: Request for Reference
J. Bauknight (Ill.) 3 December 1970

I.2

*NWG/RFC 82: Network Meeting
E. Meyer (MAC) 9 December 1970

A.3 A.5 D.1 D.2 D.5 D.6 D.7 E.1 G.1 G.2

*NWG/RFC 83: Language - Machine for Data
R. Anderson et al. (RAND) 18 December 1970

D.3 D.4

NWG/RFC 84: List of NWG/RFC's 1- 80
NIC 23 December 1970

A.4

NWG/RFC 85: Network Working Group
S. Crocker (ULA) 28 December 1970

A.2

*NWG/RFC 86: Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a
Stream to Control Graphics
S. Crocker (UCLA) 5 January 1971

D.6

*NWG/RFC 87: Topics for Discussion at the Next Network
Group
A. Vezza (MAC) 12 January 1971

A.2 D.6

*NWG/RFC 88: NETRJS - A Third Level Protocol for Remote Job
R. Braden, S. M. Wolfe (UCLA) 13 January 1971

D1. D.2 G.4

*NWG/RFC 89: Some Historic Moments in
B. Metcalfe (MAC, Harvard) 19 January 1971

C.2 D.6

Karp [Page 35]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

*NWG/RFC 90: CCN as a Network Service
R. T. Braden (UCLA) 25 January 1971

G.4

*NWG/RFC 91: A Proposed User-User
G. Mealy (Harvard) 27 December 1970

D.1 D.2 D.3 D.5 D.7

NWG/RFC 92: (Not Received

NWG/RFC 93: Initial Connection
A. McKenzie (BBN) 27 January 1971

D.1

*NWG/RFC 94: Some Thoughts on Network
E. Harslem, J. Heafner (RAND) 3 February 1971

D.6

*NWG/RFC 95: Distribution of NWG/RFC's Through the
S. Crocker 4 February 1971

A.1

*NWG/RFC 96: An Interactive Network Experiment to Study Modes
Accessing the Network Information
D. Watson (SRI-ARC) 12 February 1971

D.2 D.3 D.4 G.2

*NWG/RFC 97: A First Cut at a Proposed TELNET
J. Melvin, D. Watson (SRI-ARC) 15 February 1971

D.1 D.2 D.3 G.2

*NWG/RFC 98: Logger Protocol
E. Meyer, T. Skinner (MAC) 11 February 1971

D.1 D.2

Karp [Page 36]

RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

*NWG/RFC 99: Network
P. Karp 22 February 1971

A.2

*NWG/RFC 100: Categorization and Guide to NG/
P. Karp (MITRE) 20 February 1971

A.4

NWG/RFC 101: (Not Received

*NWG/RFC 102: Output of Host/Host Protocol
Cleaning
S. Crocker 22, 23 February 1971

A.5 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.4 C.5 C.6

[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Gottfried Janik 2/98 ]

Karp [Page 37]

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