As per Relevance of the word standard, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group R.
Request for Comments: 1831 Sun
Category: Standards Track August 1995
RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
This document describes the ONC Remote Procedure Call (ONC
Version 2) protocol as it is currently deployed and accepted. "ONC
stands for "Open Network Computing".
TABLE OF
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. TERMINOLOGY 2
3. THE RPC MODEL 2
4. TRANSPORTS AND SEMANTICS 4
5. BINDING AND RENDEZVOUS INDEPENDENCE 5
6. AUTHENTICATION 5
7. RPC PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS 5
7.1 RPC Programs and Procedures 6
7.2 Authentication 7
7.3 Program Number Assignment 8
7.4 Other Uses of the RPC Protocol 8
7.4.1 Batching 8
7.4.2 Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls 8
8. THE RPC MESSAGE PROTOCOL 9
9. AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOLS 12
9.1 Null Authentication 13
10. RECORD MARKING STANDARD 13
11. THE RPC LANGUAGE 13
11.1 An Example Service Described in the RPC Language 13
11.2 The RPC Language Specification 14
11.3 Syntax Notes 15
APPENDIX A: SYSTEM AUTHENTICATION 16
REFERENCES 17
Security Considerations 18
Author's Address 18
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
1.
This document specifies version two of the message protocol used
ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is
with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [9].
document assumes that the reader is familiar with XDR. It does
attempt to justify remote procedure calls systems or describe
use. The paper by Birrell and Nelson [1] is recommended as
excellent background for the remote procedure call concept
2.
This document discusses clients, calls, servers, replies, services
programs, procedures, and versions. Each remote procedure call
two sides: an active client side that makes the call to a server
which sends back a reply. A network service is a collection of
or more remote programs. A remote program implements one or
remote procedures; the procedures, their parameters, and results
documented in the specific program's protocol specification.
server may support more than one version of a remote program in
to be compatible with changing protocols
For example, a network file service may be composed of two programs
One program may deal with high-level applications such as file
access control and locking. The other may deal with low-level
input and output and have procedures like "read" and "write".
client of the network file service would call the
associated with the two programs of the service on behalf of
client
The terms client and server only apply to a particular transaction;
particular hardware entity (host) or software entity (process
program) could operate in both roles at different times.
example, a program that supplies remote execution service could
be a client of a network file service
3. THE RPC
The ONC RPC protocol is based on the remote procedure call model
which is similar to the local procedure call model. In the
case, the caller places arguments to a procedure in some well
specified location (such as a register window). It then
control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At
point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well
specified location, and the caller continues execution
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of
logically winds through two processes: the caller's process, and
server's process. The caller process first sends a call message
the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The
message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply
includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message
received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and caller'
execution is resumed
On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of
call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts
procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message
and then awaits the next call message
In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any
time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC
protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented
and others are possible. For example, an implementation may
to have RPC calls be asynchronous, so that the client may do
work while waiting for the reply from the server.
possibility is to have the server create a separate task to
an incoming call, so that the original server can be free to
other requests
There are a few important ways in which remote procedure calls
from local procedure calls
1. Error handling: failures of the remote server or network
be handled when using remote procedure calls
2. Global variables and side-effects: since the server does
have access to the client's address space, hidden arguments
be passed as global variables or returned as side effects
3. Performance: remote procedures usually operate one or
orders of magnitude slower than local procedure calls
4. Authentication: since remote procedure calls can be
over unsecured networks, authentication may be necessary
Authentication prevents one entity from masquerading as some
entity
The conclusion is that even though there are tools to
generate client and server libraries for a given service,
must still be designed carefully
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
4. TRANSPORTS AND
The RPC protocol can be implemented on several different
protocols. The RPC protocol does not care how a message is
from one process to another, but only with specification
interpretation of messages. However, the application may wish
obtain information about (and perhaps control over) the
layer through an interface not specified in this document.
example, the transport protocol may impose a restriction on
maximum size of RPC messages, or it may be stream-oriented like
with no size limit. The client and server must agree on
transport protocol choices
It is important to point out that RPC does not try to implement
kind of reliability and that the application may need to be aware
the type of transport protocol underneath RPC. If it knows it
running on top of a reliable transport such as TCP [6], then most
the work is already done for it. On the other hand, if it is
on top of an unreliable transport such as UDP [7], it must
its own time-out, retransmission, and duplicate detection policies
the RPC protocol does not provide these services
Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does not
specific semantics to the remote procedures or their
requirements. Semantics can be inferred from (but should
explicitly specified by) the underlying transport protocol.
example, consider RPC running on top of an unreliable transport
as UDP. If an application retransmits RPC call messages after time
outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything
the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive
reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at
once
A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from
client and not regrant them in order to insure some degree
execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by
advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every
message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client
entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client
may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting
call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing
call and not execute calls with the same ID in order to achieve
degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not
to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality
On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP,
application can infer from a reply message that the procedure
executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even
a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application
needs time-outs and reconnection to handle server crashes
There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram-
connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply
such as VMTP [2] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC
uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 10 (
MARKING STANDARD) describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC
utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as TCP
5. BINDING AND RENDEZVOUS
The act of binding a particular client to a particular service
transport parameters is NOT part of this RPC protocol specification
This important and necessary function is left up to some higher-
software
Implementors could think of the RPC protocol as the jump-
instruction ("JSR") of a network; the loader (binder) makes
useful, and the loader itself uses JSR to accomplish its task
Likewise, the binding software makes RPC useful, possibly using
to accomplish this task
6.
The RPC protocol provides the fields necessary for a client
identify itself to a service, and vice-versa, in each call and
message. Security and access control mechanisms can be built on
of this message authentication. Several different
protocols can be supported. A field in the RPC header
which protocol is being used. More information on
authentication protocols is in section 9: "Authentication Protocols".
7. RPC PROTOCOL
The RPC protocol must provide for the following
(1) Unique specification of a procedure to be called
(2) Provisions for matching response messages to request messages
(3) Provisions for authenticating the caller to service
vice-versa
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
Besides these requirements, features that detect the following
worth supporting because of protocol roll-over errors,
bugs, user error, and network administration
(1) RPC protocol mismatches
(2) Remote program protocol version mismatches
(3) Protocol errors (such as misspecification of a procedure'
parameters).
(4) Reasons why remote authentication failed
(5) Any other reasons why the desired procedure was not called
7.1 RPC Programs and
The RPC call message has three unsigned integer fields --
program number, remote program version number, and remote
number -- which uniquely identify the procedure to be called
Program numbers are administered by a central
(rpc@sun.com). Once implementors have a program number, they
implement their remote program; the first implementation would
likely have the version number 1. Because most new protocols evolve
a version field of the call message identifies which version of
protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable support of
old and new protocols through the same server process
The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called.
numbers are documented in the specific program's
specification. For example, a file service's protocol
may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure
12 is "write".
Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions
the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore,
call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is
equal to two for the version of RPC described here
The reply message to a request message has enough information
distinguish the following error conditions
(1) The remote implementation of RPC does not support
version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version
are returned
(2) The remote program is not available on the remote system
(3) The remote program does not support the requested
number. The lowest and highest supported remote program
numbers are returned
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
(4) The requested procedure number does not exist. (This
usually a client side protocol or programming error.)
(5) The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be
from the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually
by a disagreement about the protocol between client and service.)
7.2
Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa
provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has
authentication fields, the credential and verifier. The
message has one authentication field, the response verifier. The
protocol specification defines all three fields to be the
opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [9]):
enum auth_flavor {
AUTH_NONE = 0,
AUTH_SYS = 1,
AUTH_SHORT = 2
/* and more to be defined */
};
struct opaque_auth {
auth_flavor flavor
opaque body<400>;
};
In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor
enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes which are opaque
(uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation
The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within
authentication fields is specified by individual,
authentication protocol specifications. (Section 9 defines
various authentication protocols.)
If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply
contains information stating why they were rejected
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
7.3 Program Number
Program numbers are given out in groups of hexadecimal 20000000
(decimal 536870912) according to the following chart
0 - 1fffffff defined by rpc@sun.
20000000 - 3fffffff defined by
40000000 - 5fffffff
60000000 - 7fffffff
80000000 - 9fffffff
a0000000 - bfffffff
c0000000 - dfffffff
e0000000 - ffffffff
The first group is a range of numbers administered by rpc@sun.com
should be identical for all sites. The second range is
applications peculiar to a particular site. This range is
primarily for debugging new programs. When a site develops
application that might be of general interest, that
should be given an assigned number in the first range.
developers may apply for blocks of RPC program numbers in the
range by sending electronic mail to "rpc@sun.com". The third
is for applications that generate program numbers dynamically.
final groups are reserved for future use, and should not be used
7.4 Other Uses of the RPC
The intended use of this protocol is for calling remote procedures
Normally, each call message is matched with a reply message
However, the protocol itself is a message-passing protocol with
other (non-procedure call) protocols can be implemented
7.4.1
Batching is useful when a client wishes to send an arbitrarily
sequence of call messages to a server. Batching typically
reliable byte stream protocols (like TCP) for its transport. In
case of batching, the client never waits for a reply from the server
and the server does not send replies to batch calls. A sequence
batch calls is usually terminated by a legitimate remote
call operation in order to flush the pipeline and get
acknowledgement
7.4.2 Broadcast Remote Procedure
In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to
network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use
packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol.
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the
is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors,
this varies with the application
The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting - an
request can be sent to a multicast address
8. THE RPC MESSAGE
This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR
description language [9].
enum msg_type {
CALL = 0,
REPLY = 1
};
A reply to a call message can take on two forms: The message
either accepted or rejected
enum reply_stat {
MSG_ACCEPTED = 0,
MSG_DENIED = 1
};
Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the
of an attempt to call a remote procedure
enum accept_stat {
SUCCESS = 0, /* RPC executed successfully */
PROG_UNAVAIL = 1, /* remote hasn't exported program */
PROG_MISMATCH = 2, /* remote can't support version # */
PROC_UNAVAIL = 3, /* program can't support procedure */
GARBAGE_ARGS = 4, /* procedure can't decode params */
SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* errors like memory allocation failure */
};
Reasons why a call message was rejected
enum reject_stat {
RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */
AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */
};
Why authentication failed
enum auth_stat {
AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
/*
* failed at remote
*/
AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */
AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */
AUTH_BADVERF = 3, /* bad verifier (seal broken) */
AUTH_REJECTEDVERF = 4, /* verifier expired or replayed */
AUTH_TOOWEAK = 5, /* rejected for security reasons */
/*
* failed
*/
AUTH_INVALIDRESP = 6, /* bogus response verifier */
AUTH_FAILED = 7 /* reason unknown */
};
The RPC message
All messages start with a transaction identifier, xid, followed by
two-armed discriminated union. The union's discriminant is
msg_type which switches to one of the two types of the message.
xid of a REPLY message always matches that of the initiating
message. NB: The xid field is only used for clients matching
messages with call messages or for servers detecting retransmissions
the service side cannot treat this id as any type of sequence number
struct rpc_msg {
unsigned int xid
union switch (msg_type mtype) {
case CALL
call_body cbody
case REPLY
reply_body rbody
} body
};
Body of an RPC call
In version 2 of the RPC protocol specification, rpcvers must be
to 2. The fields prog, vers, and proc specify the remote program
its version number, and the procedure within the remote program to
called. After these fields are two authentication parameters:
(authentication credential) and verf (authentication verifier).
two authentication parameters are followed by the parameters to
remote procedure, which are specified by the specific
protocol
The purpose of the authentication verifier is to validate
authentication credential. Note that these two items
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
historically separate, but are always used together as one
entity
struct call_body {
unsigned int rpcvers; /* must be equal to two (2) */
unsigned int prog
unsigned int vers
unsigned int proc
opaque_auth cred
opaque_auth verf
/* procedure specific parameters start here */
};
Body of a reply to an RPC call
union reply_body switch (reply_stat stat) {
case MSG_ACCEPTED
accepted_reply areply
case MSG_DENIED
rejected_reply rreply
} reply
Reply to an RPC call that was accepted by the server
There could be an error even though the call was accepted. The
field is an authentication verifier that the server generates
order to validate itself to the client. It is followed by a
whose discriminant is an enum accept_stat. The SUCCESS arm of
union is protocol specific. The PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL
GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR arms of the union are void.
PROG_MISMATCH arm specifies the lowest and highest version numbers
the remote program supported by the server
struct accepted_reply {
opaque_auth verf
union switch (accept_stat stat) {
case SUCCESS
opaque results[0];
/*
* procedure-specific results start
*/
case PROG_MISMATCH
struct {
unsigned int low
unsigned int high
} mismatch_info
default
/*
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
* Void. Cases include PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL
* GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR
*/
void
} reply_data
};
Reply to an RPC call that was rejected by the server
The call can be rejected for two reasons: either the server is
running a compatible version of the RPC protocol (RPC_MISMATCH),
the server rejects the identity of the caller (AUTH_ERROR). In
of an RPC version mismatch, the server returns the lowest and
supported RPC version numbers. In case of invalid authentication
failure status is returned
union rejected_reply switch (reject_stat stat) {
case RPC_MISMATCH
struct {
unsigned int low
unsigned int high
} mismatch_info
case AUTH_ERROR
auth_stat stat
};
9. AUTHENTICATION
As previously stated, authentication parameters are opaque,
open-ended to the rest of the RPC protocol. This section defines
standard "flavors" of authentication. Implementors are free
invent new authentication types, with the same rules of flavor
assignment as there is for program number assignment. The "flavor
of a credential or verifier refers to the value of the "flavor"
in the opaque_auth structure. Flavor numbers, like RPC
numbers, are also administered centrally, and developers may
new flavor numbers by applying through electronic mail
"rpc@sun.com". Credentials and verifiers are represented as
length opaque data (the "body" field in the opaque_auth structure).
In this document, two flavors of authentication are described.
these, Null authentication (described in the next subsection)
mandatory - it must be available in all implementations.
authentication is described in Appendix A. It is
recommended that implementors include System authentication in
implementations. Many applications use this style of authentication
and availability of this flavor in an implementation will
interoperability
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
9.1 Null
Often calls must be made where the client does not care about
identity or the server does not care who the client is. In
case, the flavor of the RPC message's credential, verifier, and
verifier is "AUTH_NONE". Opaque data associated with "AUTH_NONE"
undefined. It is recommended that the length of the opaque data
zero
10. RECORD MARKING
When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream
protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message
another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors
This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one
record
A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A
fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes
fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as
XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The
encodes two values -- a boolean which indicates whether the
is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the
is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value which is
length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is
highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits
(Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!)
11. THE RPC
Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a
language, there is also need to describe the procedures that
on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The
Language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition
"program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The
example is used to describe the essence of the language
11.1 An Example Service Described in the RPC
Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program
program PING_PROG {
/*
* Latest and greatest
*/
version PING_VERS_PINGBACK {
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
/*
* Ping the client, return the round-trip
* (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the
* timed out
*/
PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1;
} = 2;
/*
* Original
*/
version PING_VERS_ORIG {
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
} = 1;
} = 1;
const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */
The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with
procedures, PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL
no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for
round-trip times from the client to the server and back again.
convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the
semantics, and never require any kind of authentication. The
procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse
operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (
microseconds) that the operation used. The next version
PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol and it
not contain PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful
compatibility with old client programs, and as this program
it may be dropped from the protocol entirely
11.2 The RPC Language
The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined in
1014, except for the added definition of a "program-def"
below
program-def
"program" identifier "{"
version-
version-def *
"}" "=" constant ";"
version-def
"version" identifier "{"
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
procedure-
procedure-def *
"}" "=" constant ";"
procedure-def
type-specifier identifier "(" type-
("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";"
11.3 Syntax
(1) The following keywords are added and cannot be used
identifiers: "program" and "version";
(2) A version name cannot occur more than once within the scope of
program definition. Nor can a version number occur more than
within the scope of a program definition
(3) A procedure name cannot occur more than once within the scope
a version definition. Nor can a procedure number occur more than
within the scope of version definition
(4) Program identifiers are in the same name space as constant
type identifiers
(5) Only unsigned constants can be assigned to programs, versions
procedures
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
APPENDIX A: SYSTEM
The client may wish to identify itself, for example, as it
identified on a UNIX(tm) system. The flavor of the client
is "AUTH_SYS". The opaque data constituting the credential
the following structure
struct authsys_parms {
unsigned int stamp
string machinename<255>;
unsigned int uid
unsigned int gid
unsigned int gids<16>;
};
The "stamp" is an arbitrary ID which the caller machine may generate
The "machinename" is the name of the caller's machine (
"krypton"). The "uid" is the caller's effective user ID. The "gid
is the caller's effective group ID. The "gids" is a counted array
groups which contain the caller as a member. The
accompanying the credential should have "AUTH_NONE" flavor
(defined above). Note this credential is only unique within
particular domain of machine names, uids, and gids
The flavor value of the verifier received in the reply message
the server may be "AUTH_NONE" or "AUTH_SHORT". In the case
"AUTH_SHORT", the bytes of the reply verifier's string encode
opaque structure. This new opaque structure may now be passed to
server instead of the original "AUTH_SYS" flavor credential.
server may keep a cache which maps shorthand opaque
(passed back by way of an "AUTH_SHORT" style reply verifier) to
original credentials of the caller. The caller can save
bandwidth and server cpu cycles by using the shorthand credential
The server may flush the shorthand opaque structure at any time.
this happens, the remote procedure call message will be rejected
to an authentication error. The reason for the failure will
"AUTH_REJECTEDCRED". At this point, the client may wish to try
original "AUTH_SYS" style of credential
It should be noted that use of this flavor of authentication does
guarantee any security for the users or providers of a service,
itself. The authentication provided by this scheme can be
legitimate only when applications using this scheme and the
can be secured externally, and privileged transport addresses
used for the communicating end-points (an example of this is the
of privileged TCP/UDP ports in Unix systems - note that not
systems enforce privileged transport address mechanisms).
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
[1] Birrell, A. D. & Nelson, B. J., "Implementing Remote
Calls", XEROX CSL-83-7, October 1983.
[2] Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol",
Preliminary Version 0.3, Stanford University, January 1987.
[3] Diffie & Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography",
Transactions on Information Theory IT-22, November 1976.
[4] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol", RFC 1305, UDEL
March 1992.
[5] National Bureau of Standards, "Data Encryption Standard",
Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 46,
1977.
[6] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA
Program Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, USC/
Sciences Institute, September 1981.
[7] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1980.
[8] Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
[9] Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
RFC 1832, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.
[10] Miller, S., Neuman, C., Schiller, J., and J. Saltzer, "
E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System",
M.I.T. Project Athena, Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 21,
1987.
[11] Steiner, J., Neuman, C., and J. Schiller, "Kerberos:
Authentication Service for Open Network Systems", pp. 191-202
Usenix Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, February 1988.
[12] Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network
Service (V5)", RFC 1510, Digital Equipment Corporation
USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1993.
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
Raj
Sun Microsystems, Inc
ONC
2550 Garcia
M/S MTV-5-40
Mountain View, CA 94043
Phone: 415-336-2478
Fax: 415-336-6015
EMail: raj@eng.sun.
Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 18]
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
