As per Relevance of the word internet, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 880 J.
Obsoletes: RFC 840 October 1983
OFFICIAL
This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
in the Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or changes planned
To first order, the official protocols are those in the "
Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW) dated March 1982. There
several protocols in use that are not in the IPTW. A few of
protocols in the IPTW have been revised. Notably, the mail
have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet
Protocols" dated November 1982. Telnet and the most useful
protocols were issued by the NIC in a booklet entitled "Internet
Protocol and Options" (ITP), dated June 1983. Some protocols have
been revised for many years, these are found in the old "
Protocol Handbook" (APH) dated January 1978. There is also a volume
protocol related information called the "Internet Protocol
Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982.
This document is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries
protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In each entry
are notes on status, specification, comments, other references
dependencies, and contact
The status is one of: required, recommended, elective,
experimental
The specification identifies the protocol defining documents
The comments describe any differences from the specification
problems with the protocol
The other references identify documents that comment on or expand
the protocol
The dependencies indicate what other protocols are called upon
this protocol
The contact indicates a person who can answer questions about
protocol
Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]
Official Protocols RFC 880
In particular, the status may be
- all hosts must implement the required protocol
- all hosts are encouraged to implement the
protocol
- hosts may implement or not the elective protocol
- hosts should not implement the experimental protocol
they are participating in the experiment and have
their use of this protocol with the contact person,
- this is not a protocol
Catenet Model ------------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Gives an overview of the organization and principles of
Internet
Could be revised and expanded
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Network
Internet Protocol (IP) ---------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 791 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
This is the universal protocol of the Internet. This
protocol provides the universal addressing of hosts in
Internet
A few minor problems have been noted in this document
The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options
The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet
the route is the next to be used. The confusion is between
phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "
smallest legal value for the pointer is 4". If you
confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer
at 4.
Another important point is the alternate reassembly
suggested in RFC 815.
Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.
have not completed an implementation of IP if it does
include ICMP
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly
RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and
RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) ---------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 792 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
The control messages and error reports that go with
Internet Protocol
A few minor errors in the document have been noted
Suggestions have been made for additional types of
message and additional destination unreachable messages
Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.
have not completed an implementation of IP if it does
include ICMP
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Host
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) ---------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 768 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Provides a datagram service to applications. Adds
addressing to the IP services
The only change noted for the UDP specification is a
clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding
is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted
the length
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) --------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 793 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service
Many comments and corrections have been received for the
specification document. These are primarily document
rather than protocol bugs
Event Processing Section: There are many minor corrections
clarifications needed in this section
Push: There are still some phrases in the document that give
"record mark" flavor to the push. These should be
clarified. The push is not a record mark
Listening Servers: Several comments have been received
difficulties with contacting listening servers. There
be some discussion of implementation issues for servers,
some notes on alternative models of system and
organization for servers
Maximum Segment Size: The maximum segment size option
be generalized and clarified. It can be used to
increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default
The default should be established more clearly. The default
based on the default maximum Internet Datagram size which
576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers. The option
only the segment data. For each of IP and TCP the
header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets. So
default maximum data segment is could be anywhere from 456
536 octets. The current proposal is to set it at 536
octets
Idle Connections: There have been questions
automatically closing idle connections. Idle connections
ok, and should not be closed. There are several cases
idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user
thinking for a long time following a message from the
computer before his next input. There is no TCP "probe
mechanism, and none is needed
Queued Receive Data on Closing: There are several points
it is not clear from the description what to do about
Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]
Official Protocols RFC 880
received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user
particularly when the connection is being closed. In general
the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a
call
Out of Order Segments: The description says that segments
arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next
to be processed, may be kept on hand. It should also point
that there is a very large performance penalty for not
so
User Time Out: This is the time out started on an open or
call. If this user time out occurs the user should
notified, but the connection should not be closed or the
deleted. The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if
wants to give up
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and
RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP) -------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 197
COMMENTS
This is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations
small remotely located computers
This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and
TACs
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-
Cross Net Debugger (XNET) ------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 158
COMMENTS
A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to
systems
This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 643
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) ------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 827
COMMENTS
The gateway protocol now under development
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Mills@USC-
Gateway Gateway Protocol (GGP) -------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 823
COMMENTS
The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Brescia@BBN-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Multiplexing Protocol (MUX) ----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 90
COMMENTS
Defines a capability to combine several segments from
higher level protocols in one IP datagram
No current experiment in progress. There is some question
to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions
actually take place. Also, there are some issues about
information captured in the multiplexing header being (a
insufficient, or (b) over specific
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Stream Protocol (ST) -----------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 119
COMMENTS
A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use
multihost real time applications
The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may
longer be consistent with this specification. The
should be updated and issued as an RFC
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Forgie@
Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) ------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC
COMMENTS
Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing
The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should
updated and issued as an RFC
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream
CONTACT: Casner@USC-
Application
Telnet Protocol (TELNET) -------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 854 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol
Options")
COMMENTS
The protocol for remote terminal access
This has been revised since the IPTW. RFC 764 in IPTW is
obsolete
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Telnet Options (TELNET-OPTIONS) ------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: General description of options: RFC 855
(in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options")
Number Name RFC NIC ITP APH
------ --------------------------------- --- ----- --- --- ---
0 Binary Transmission 856 ----- yes obs
1 Echo 857 ----- yes obs
2 Reconnection ... 15391 no yes
3 Suppress Go Ahead 858 ----- yes obs
4 Approx Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 no yes
5 Status 859 ----- yes obs
6 Timing Mark 860 ----- yes obs
7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 no yes
8 Output Line Width ... 20196 no yes
9 Output Page Size ... 20197 no yes
10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 no yes
11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 no yes
12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 no yes
13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 no yes
14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 no yes
15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 no yes
16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 no yes
17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 no yes
18 Logout 727 40025 no yes
19 Byte Macro 735 42083 no yes
20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 no yes
21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 no yes
22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 no no
23 Send Location 779 ----- no no
255 Extended-Options-List 861 ----- yes obs
(obs = obsolete
The ITP column indicates if the specification is included in
Internet Telnet Protocol and Options. The APH column indicates
the specification is included in the ARPANET Protocol Handbook
The USE column of the table above indicates which options are
general use
COMMENTS
The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status
Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have
recently updated and reissued. These are the most
implemented options
Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]
Official Protocols RFC 880
The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful
should be revised and reissued. The others should
eliminated
The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo
Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended
List
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES:
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) ---------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts.
for access control and negotiation of file parameters
There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A
change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a
clarification is needed in the discussion of the management
the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made
include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775).
Even though the MAIL features are defined in this document
they are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used
all mail service in the Internet
Data Connection Management
a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP
must support use of the default data connection ports,
only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports
b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI
specify a non-default user side data port with the
command. The User-PI may request the server side
identify a non-default server side data port with the
command. Since a connection is defined by the pair
addresses, either of these actions is enough to get
different data connection, still it is permitted to do
Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]
Official Protocols RFC 880
commands to use new ports on both ends of the
connection
c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the
mode of data transfer the end of the file must be
by closing the connection. This causes a problem
multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due
need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time
period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus
connection can not be reopened at once
There are two solutions to this problem. The first is
negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above).
second is to use another transfer mode
A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode
inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if
connection closed prematurely or not. The other
modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection
indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP
that the data connection can be parsed to determine
end of the file. Thus using these modes one can
the data connection open for multiple file transfers
Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP
The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind
The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and
NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an
connection were lost or damaged by the network the
could not recover. It is a tribute to the
designers that the NCP FTP worked so well
The TCP is designed to provide reliable
over many different types of networks
interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with
set of networks that can not promise to work as
as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions
end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets
This leads to the need for the connection phase-
time-out. The NCP never had to deal
acknowledgements or retransmissions or many
things the TCP must do to make connection reliable
a more complex world
LIST and NLST
There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands,
what is appropriate to return. Some clarification
Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]
Official Protocols RFC 880
motivation for these commands should be added to
specification
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 678 - Document File Format
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) ------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
A very simple file moving protocol, no access control
provided
No known problems with this specification. This is in use
several local networks
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) -------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 (in "Internet Mail Protocols")
COMMENTS
The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts
This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW)
obsolete
There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the
implementations. Some documentation of these problems can
found in the file [ISIF]MAIL.ERRORS
Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should
resolved
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 822 - Mail Header Format
This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 733 (in IPTW
is obsolete. Further revision of RFC 822 is needed
correct some minor errors in the details of
specification
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Remote Job Entry (RJE) ---------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in APH
COMMENTS
The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and
the results
Some changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer
Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Remote Job Service (NETRJS) ----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in APH
COMMENTS
A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving
results used with the UCLA IBM OS system
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
Revision in progress
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Braden@USC-
Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET) ------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 818
COMMENTS
Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Graphics Protocol (GRAPHICS) ---------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH
COMMENTS
The protocols for vector graphics
Very minor changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Echo Protocol (ECHO) -----------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 862
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Discard Protocol (DISCARD) -----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 863
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Character Generator Protocol (CHARGEN) -----------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 864
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Quote of the Day Protocol (QUOTE) ----------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 865
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Active Users Protocol (USERS) --------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 866
COMMENTS
Lists the currently active users
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Finger Protocol (FINGER) -------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 742 (in APH
COMMENTS
Provides information on the current or most recent activity
a user
Some extensions have been suggested
Some changes are are needed for TCP
Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]
Official Protocols RFC 880
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
NICNAME Protocol (NICNAME) -----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 812 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Accesses the ARPANET Directory database. Provides a way
find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers
organizations, and mailboxes
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-
HOSTNAME Protocol (HOSTNAME) ---------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 811 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet,
Internet Address, and the protocols it implements
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 810 - Host Table
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Host Name Server Protocol (NAMESERVER) -----------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 116 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host
to an Internet Address
This specification has significant problems: 1) The
syntax is out of date. 2) The protocol details are ambiguous
in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't
itself and the op code. 3) The extensions are not supported
any known implementation
Work is in progress on a significant revision.
implementations of this protocol are not advised
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol (CSNET-NAMESERVER) --------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: CS-DN-2
COMMENTS
Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to
information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Solomon@
Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Daytime Protocol (DAYTIME) -----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 867
COMMENTS
Provides the day and time in ASCII character string
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Time Server Protocol (TIME) ----------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 868
COMMENTS
Provides the time as the number of seconds from a
reference time
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]
Official Protocols RFC 880
DCNET Time Server Protocol (CLOCK) ---------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 778
COMMENTS
Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message
CONTACT: Mills@USC-
SUPDUP Protocol (SUPDUP) -------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 734 (in APH
COMMENTS
A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Admin.MRC@SU-
Internet Message Protocol (MPM) ------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 759
COMMENTS
This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.
implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 767 - Structured Document
Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]
Official Protocols RFC 880
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Network Standard Text Editor (NETED) -------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 569
COMMENTS
Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by
Internet host
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Assigned Numbers ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 870
COMMENTS
Describes the fields of various protocols that are
specific values for actual use, and lists the
assigned values
Issued October 1983, replaces RFC 790 in IPTW, and RFC 820
January 1983.
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Pre-emption --------------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 794 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Service Mappings ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 795 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto
parameters of some specific networks
Out of date, needs revision
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Address Mappings ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 796 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and
addresses of some specific networks
Out of date, needs revision
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]
Official Protocols RFC 880
Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks ---------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 877
COMMENTS
Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams
Public Data Networks
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: jtk@
Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]
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
