As per Relevance of the word research, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group National Research
Request for Comments: 939
February 1985
Executive
of the NRC Report
Transport Protocols
Department of
Data
STATUS OF THIS
This RFC is distributed for information only. This RFC does
establish any policy for the DARPA research community or the
operational community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
This RFC reproduces the material from the "front pages" of
National Research Council report resulting from a study of the
Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and
Protocol level 4 (TP-4). The point of this RFC is to make the
of the Executive Summary widely available in a timely way. The
of presentation has been altered, and the pagination changed
The title of the full report is
Transport Protocols
Department of
Data
Report to the Department of
and the National Bureau of
Committee on Computer-Computer Communication
Board on Telecommunications and Computer Applications Commission
Engineering and Technical
National Research
National Academy
Washington, D.C. February 1985
National Research Council [Page 1]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
The project that is the subject of this report was approved by
Governing Board on the National Research Council, whose members
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen
their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors
according to procedures approved by a Report Review
consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine
The National Research Council was established by the National
of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. The Council operates in
with general policies determined by the Academy under the
of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the
as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation.
Council has become the principal operating agency of both
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
in the conduct of their services to the government, the public,
the scientific and engineering communities. It is
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine
established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of
National Academy of Sciences
This is a report of work supported by Contract No. DCA-83-C-0051
between the U.S. Defense Communications Agency and the
Academy of Sciences, underwritten jointly by the Department
Defense and the National Bureau of Standards
Copies of the full report are available from
Board on Telecommunications and Computer Applications
on Engineering and Technical
National Research
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20418
National Research Council [Page 2]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
This is the final report of the National Research Council
on Computer-Computer Communication Protocols. The committee
established in May l983 at the request of the Department of
(DOD) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Department
Commerce, to develop recommendations and guidelines for
differences between the two agencies on a data
transport protocol standard
Computer-based information and transaction-processing systems
basic tools in modern industry and government. Over the past
years there has been a growing demand to transfer and
digitized data in these systems quickly and accurately. This
for data transfer and exchange has been both among the terminals
computers within an organization and among those in
organizations
Rapid electronic transport of digitized data requires
communication links that tie the elements together. These links
established, organized, and maintained by means of a layered
of procedures performing the many functions inherent in
communications process. The successful movement of digitized
depends upon the participants using identical or
procedures, or protocols
The DOD and NBS have each developed and promulgated a
protocol as standard. The two protocols, however, are dissimilar
incompatible. The committee was called to resolve the
between these protocols
The committee held its first meeting in August l983 at the
Research Council in Washington, D.C. Following this two-day
the committee held five more two-day meetings, a three-day meeting
and a one-week workshop
The committee was briefed by personnel from both agencies.
addition, the committee heard from Jon Postel, University of
California's Information Sciences Institute; Dave Oran,
Equipment Corporation; Vinton Cerf, MCI; David Wood, The
Corporation; Clair Miller, Honeywell, and Robert Follett, IBM
representing the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturer'
Association; and John Newman, Ultimate Corporation. In most
the briefings were followed by discussion
The committee wishes to thank Philip Selvaggi of the Department
Defense and Robert Blanc of the NBS, Institute of Computer
National Research Council [Page 3]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
and Technology, for their cooperation as their agency's
representatives to the committee. The committee appreciates
contributions and support of Richard B. Marsten, Executive
of the Board on Telecommunications -- Computer Applications (BOTCAP),
and Jerome D. Rosenberg, BOTCAP Senior Staff Officer and
committee Study Director. We also wish to thank Lois A. Leak for
expert administrative and secretarial support
National Research Council [Page 4]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
EXECUTIVE
Computer communication networks have become a very important part
military and commercial operations. Indeed, the nation is
dependent upon their efficiency and reliability, and the
proliferation of networks and their widespread use have
the importance of developing uniform conventions, or protocols,
communication between computer systems. The Department of
(DOD) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) have been
engaged in activities related to protocol standardization.
report is concerned primarily with recommendations on
standardization within the Department of Defense
Department of Defense's Transmission
The DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
been conducting and supporting research on computer networks
over fifteen years (1). These efforts led to the development
modern packet-switched network design concepts.
between computers is generally accomplished by packet
using strict protocols for the control and exchange of messages
The Advanced Research Projects Agency network (ARPANET),
implemented in the early 1970s, provided a testing ground
research on communications protocols. In 1978, after four
of development, the DOD promulgated versions of its
Control Protocol (TCP) and an Internet Protocol (IP) and
their use as standards within the DOD. TCP is now widely used
accepted. These protocols meet the unique operational
functional requirements of the DOD, and any changes in
protocols are viewed with some trepidation by members of
department. DOD representatives have stated that
TCP greatly increased the momentum within the DOD
establishing interoperability between networks within the DOD
International Standards Organization's Transport
The NBS Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology (ICST),
cooperation with the DOD, many industrial firms, and
International Standards Organization (ISO), has developed a
international
Transport Protocol (TP-4) and a new Internetwork Protocol (2).
These protocols will soon be available as commercial products
Although in part derived from TCP, the new protocols are
compatible with TCP (3). The U.S. standards organizations
National Research Council [Page 5]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
supporting TP-4 in international operations, and the Department
Commerce is proposing TP-4 as a Federal Information
Standard (FIPS) for use by all federal agencies
DOD OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL
The DOD has unique needs that could be affected by the
and Internet Protocol layers. Although all data networks
have some of these capabilities, the DOD's needs for
readiness, mobilization, and war-fighting capabilities
extreme. These needs include the following
Survivability--Some networks must function, albeit at
performance, after many nodes and links have been destroyed
Security--Traffic patterns and data must be
protected through encryption, access control, auditing,
routing
Precedence--Systems should adjust the quality of service on
basis of priority of use; this includes a capability to
services in cases of very high priority
Robustness--The system must not fail or suffer much loss
capability because of unpredicted situations, unexpected loads
or misuse. An international crisis is the strongest test
robustness, since the system must operate immediately and
virtually full performance when an international
flares up unexpectedly
Availability--Elements of the system needed for
readiness or fighting must be continuously available
Interoperability--Different elements of the Department must
able to "talk" to one another, often in unpredicted
between parties that had not planned to interoperate
These operational needs reflect themselves into five technical
managerial needs
1. Functional and operational specifications (that is,
the protocol designs meet the operational needs?);
2. Maximum interoperability
3. Minimum procurement, development, and support costs
National Research Council [Page 6]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
4. Ease of transition to new protocols;
5. Manageability and responsiveness to changing
requirements
These are the criteria against which DOD options for using the
transport and internet protocols should be evaluated
Interoperability is a very important DOD need. Ideally,
networks would permit operators at any terminal to access or
accessed by applications in any computer. This would provide
network power for users, integration of independently
systems, better use of resources, and increased survivability.
increase interoperability, the Office of the Secretary of
has mandated the use of TCP for the Defense Communication System'
Defense Data Network (DDN), unless waivers are granted.
addition, the Defense Communication Agency (DCA) is
standards for three higher-level "utility" protocols for
transfer, terminal access, and electronic mail. Partly as
result of these actions, it has become clear that there is
momentum toward accepting interoperability and a recognition
it is an important operational need
It is very important, however, to recognize that
interoperability is only achieved with full generality when
communication nodes can interoperate at all protocol levels.
the DOD the relevant levels are as follows
1. Internet, using IP
2. Transport, using TCP
3. Utility, using file, terminal, or mail protocols;
4. Specific applications that use the above protocols
their particular purpose
Accordingly, if a network is developed using one
protocol, it would generally not be able to
functionally with other networks using the same transport
unless both networks were also using the higher-level utility
application protocols. In evaluating whether or not to convert
TP-4 and in developing a transition plan, the following
must be considered
The DOD contains numerous communities of interest
principal need is to interoperate within their own members
National Research Council [Page 7]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
independently. Such communities generally have a specific
well-defined mission. The DOD Intelligence Information
(DODIIS) and the World Wide Military Command and Control
(WWMCCS) are examples. Interoperability is needed
between the higher layer applications programs initially
to each community of interest
There are many different kinds of operations needed
communities of interest. Examples of such operations
headquarters' need for access to several
communities and the communities' need for some
functional interoperability with each other (such as
exchange).
The need for functional interoperability can arise
unexpectedly and urgently, at a time of crisis or when
management opportunities are discovered.
standardization of TP-4 and higher-level protocols can
help to achieve these needs. Often, special development
additional applications that cost time and money will
necessary
The DOD needs functional interoperability with many
external agencies that are committed to ISO standards:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), some
and security agencies, and other parts of the
government
The same objectives that have prompted the use of
protocols at higher-level headquarters will lead to their
by tactical groups in the field
SOME
A detailed comparison of the DOD Transmission Control Protocol
the ISO Transport Protocol indicates they are
equivalent and provide essentially similar services. Because
is clear that a great deal of care and experience in
development have gone into generating the specifications for TP-4,
the committee is confident that TP-4 will meet
requirements
Although there are differences between the two protocols, they
not compromise DOD requirements. And, although in several areas
including the data transfer interface, flow control,
establishment, and out-of-band, services are provided in
ways by the two protocols, neither seems intrinsically superior
National Research Council [Page 8]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
Thus, while existing applications may need to be modified
if moved from TCP to TP-4, new applications can be written to
either protocol with a similar level of effort
The TCP and TP-4 protocols are sufficiently equivalent in
security-related properties in that there are no
technical points favoring the use of one over the other
While TCP currently has the edge in maturity of implementation
TP-4 is gaining rapidly due to the worldwide support for
acceptance of the Open System Interconnection (OSI)
standards. Experimental TCP implementations were completed
1974 at Stanford University and BBN Communications Corporation
Between 1974 and 1982 a large number of implementations
produced. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA
network switched to a complete use of TCP in January 1983.
Operations have been satisfactory and its use is growing.
number of TCP implementations are also in commercial use
various private networks
In contrast, TP-4 has not yet been implemented in any
operational system. It has been tested experimentally, however
and has received endorsement by many commercial vendors worldwide
In addition, substantial portions of TP-4 have been
at the National Computer Conference in July 1984.
The Internet Protocol (IP) part of the standards is not
to be a problem. The ISO IP is not as far along as TP-4, but
is much less complex. The ISO IP, based very strongly on the
IP, became a draft international standard in April 1984.
The rapidity of the progress in ISO and the results achieved
the past two years have surprised even the supporters
international standards. The reasons for this progress
twofold: strong market demands stemming from the
integration of communications and data processing and the
in networking technology over the past years as the result of
and commercial developments
Although the DOD networks have been a model upon which the
transport standards have been built, the rest of the world
adopting TP-4. Because the DOD represents a small fraction of
market and because the United States supports the ISO standard,
is not realistic to hope that TP-4 can be altered to conform
TCP. This raises the question as to what action should be
by the DOD with respect to the ISO standard
National Research Council [Page 9]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
SOME ECONOMIC
The DOD has a large and growing commitment in operational
networks, and this will increase by 50 to 100 percent in the
eighteen months. This rate of investment will probably
for the next five years for new systems and the upgrading
current ones. The current Military Network (MILNET) and
Information Network (MINET) systems are expanding and will
be combined. The Strategic Air Command Digital
Network (SACDIN) and DODIIS are undergoing major upgrading.
these changes are completed, there are plans to upgrade the
Intercomputer Network (WIN) and to add separate SECRET and
SECRET networks. There are plans to combine these six networks
the late 1980s, and they will become interoperable and
secure using an advanced technology now under development.
these plans are implemented on schedule, a delay of several
in moving to TP-4 would mean that the DOD networks in the
1980s would be virtually all TCP-based. Subsequent conversion
international standards would be very expensive if
attempted in order to maintain established DOD
and gain interoperability with a large body of users
As the Department of Defense policy recognizes, there
significant advantages in using commercial vendor products if
meet the department's operational needs. The major advantages
as follows
Costs to the DOD for development, production, and
are significantly lower because (1) vendors spread the
over a much larger user base, (2) commercial vendors
generally more efficient in their operations, and (3)
look for ways to improve their product to meet competition
The department generally gets more effective products
vendors integrate the protocol functions into their
software and hardware product line. Thus the DOD may be
eventually to use commercial software products that are
on top of, and thereby take advantage of, the
protocols
By depending on industry to manage the development
maintenance of products, the department can use its
management and technical resources on activities unique to
mission
Because the costs of transport and internet protocol
and maintenance are so intertwined with other factors, it
National Research Council [Page 10]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
impossible to give a precise estimate of the savings that would
achieved by using commercial products. Savings will vary
individual cases. The marginal savings should range from 30 to 80
percent
The ISO protocols are now well specified but will not generally
commercially available for many months. Nevertheless,
committee believes that the principles on which they are based
well-established, and the protocols can be made to satisfy
DOD's needs. The committee recommends that the DOD move
adoption of TP-4 as costandard with TCP and toward exclusive
of TP-4.
Transition to the use of the ISO standards, however, must
managed in a manner that will maintain DOD's
capabilities and minimize risks. The timing of the transition is
therefore, a major concern
Descriptions of two options that take this requirement
account follow. A majority of the committee recommends the
option, while a minority favors the second. A third option--
defer action--is also described but not recommended
Option 1
The first option is for the DOD to immediately modify
current transport policy statement to specify TP-4 as
costandard along with TCP. In addition, the DOD would
a military specification for TP-4 that would also cover
requirements for discretionary options allowed under the
protocol specifications. Requests for proposals (RFPs) for
networks or major upgrades of existing networks would
TP-4 as the preferred protocol. Contracts for TP-4
would be awarded only to contractors providing
products, except for unique cases
Existing networks that use TCP and new networks
committed to the use of TCP-based systems could continue
acquire implementations of TCP. The DOD should
review each case, however, to see whether it would
advantageous to delay or modify some of these acquisitions
order to use commercial TP-4 products. For each community
users it should be decided when it is operationally
National Research Council [Page 11]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
economically most advantageous to replace its current
planned systems in order to conform to ISO standards
excessively compromising continued operations
United States government test facilities would be developed
enable validation of TP-4 products (4). The Department
Defense would either require that products be validated
these test facilities or that they be certified by the vendor
The test facilities could also be used to isolate
protocol compatibility problems. The existing NBS
tools should be used as the base for the DOD test facilities
Because under this option networks based on both TCP and TP-4
would coexist for some time, several capabilities
facilitate interoperability among networks would need to
developed. The Department of Defense generally will not
them commercially available. Examples are gateways
networks or specialized hosts that provide services such
electronic mail. The department would need to initiate
modify development programs to provide these capabilities,
a test and demonstration network would be required
Option 2
Under Option 2 the Department of Defense would
announce its intention to adopt TP-4 as a transport
costandard with TCP after a satisfactory demonstration of
suitability for use in military networks. A final
would be deferred until the demonstration has been
and TP-4 is commercially available
The demonstration should take at most eighteen months
should involve development of TP-4 implementations and
installation. This option differs from Option 1 primarily
postponing the adoption of a TP-4 standard and, consequently
the issuance of RFPs based on TP-4 until successful
of a demonstration. The department, however, should
with those provisions of Option 1 that may be completed
parallel with the demonstration. Early issuance of a TP-4
military specification, development of validation procedures
and implementation of means for interoperability would
particularly important in this regard
National Research Council [Page 12]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
Option 3
Under the third option the DOD would continue using TCP as
accepted transport standard and defer any decision on the
of TP-4 indefinitely. The department would be expected to
well informed on the development and use of the new protocol
the commercial and international arena and, with the
Bureau of Standards, work on means to transfer data between
two protocol systems. Testing and evaluation of TP-4
by NBS would continue. The DOD might eventually
both protocol systems in an evolutionary conversion to TP-4.
Comparison of
The committee believes that all three options equally
the functional objectives of the DOD, including matters
security. It believes the two protocols are
similar and no significant differences in performance are to
expected if the chosen protocol implementation is of
quality and is optimized for the given environment
The primary motivation for recommending Option 1 is to
the benefits of standard commercial products in
communication protocol area at an early date. Benefits
smaller development, procurement, and support costs;
timely updates; and a wider product availability.
immediately committing to TP-4 as a costandard for new systems
Option 1 minimizes the number of systems that have to
converted eventually from TCP. The ability to manage
transition is better than with Option 2 since the number
systems changed would be smaller and the time duration of
TCP and TP-4 operation would be shorter. Interoperability
external systems (NATO, government, commercial),
presumably will also use TP-4, would be brought about
quickly. Option 1 involves greater risk, however, since
commits to a new approach without as complete a
of its viability
As with Option 1, a primary benefit of following Option 2
be obtaining the use of standard commercial products.
procurement costs probably would be lower than with Option 1
because the commercial market for TP-4 will have
somewhat by the time DOD would begin to buy TP-4 products
Risk is smaller, compared to Option 1, because testing
demonstration of the suitability for military use will
preceded the commitment to the ISO protocols. Transition
support costs would be higher than for Option 1, however
National Research Council [Page 13]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
because more networks and systems would already have
implemented with TCP. Also this is perhaps the most
option to manage since the largest number of system
and the longest interval of mixed TCP and TP-4 operations
occur. In addition, interoperability with external
through standardization would be delayed
The principal benefit of exercising Option 3 would be
elimination of transition cost and the risk of faulty
behavior and delay. It would allow the most rapid
of full internal interoperability among DOD systems
Manageability should be good because only one set of
would be in use (one with which the DOD already has
experience), and because the DOD would be in complete
of system evolution. Procurement costs for TCP systems
remain high compared with standard ISO protocol products
however, and availability of implementations for new
and releases would remain limited. External
with non-DOD systems would be limited and inefficient
In summary, Option 1 provides the most rapid path toward
use of commercial products and interoperability with
systems. Option 2 reduces the risk but involves
greater delay and expense. Option 3 involves the least
and provides the quickest route to interoperability within
Defense Department at the least short-term cost. These are
however, accompanied by penalties of incompatibility with
and other external systems and higher life-cycle costs
NOTES
(1) The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was
and became the Defense Advanced Research Projects
(DARPA) in 1973.
(2) The ISO Transport Protocol and ISO Internetwork
became Draft International Standards in September 1983
April 1984, respectively. Commercial vendors
consider Draft International Standards to be ready
implementation
(3) Except where noted, the abbreviation TCP generally refers
both the DOD's Transmission Control Protocol and its
Protocol. Similarly, the abbreviation TP-4 refers to
the ISO Transport Protocol class 4 and its
Protocol. (Transport Protocol classes 0 to 3 are used
special purposes not related to those of this study.)
National Research Council [Page 14]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
(4) Validation means a systematic and thorough state-of-the-
testing of the products to assure that all
specifications are being achieved
National Research Council [Page 15]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
CONTENTS OF THE FULL
PREFACE .........................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................
I Introduction ............................................... 1
II Review of NBS and DOD Objectives ........................... 3
III Comparison of DOD and ISO Protocols ....................... 13
IV Status of DOD and ISO
Implementations and Specifications ....................... 25
V Markets ................................................... 31
VI Development of Standard Commercial
Special Commercial Products ............................... 39
VII Responsiveness of International
Process to Change ......................................... 43
VIII Options for DOD and NBS ................................... 45
IX Cost Comparison of Options ............................... 47
X Evaluation of Options ..................................... 53
XI Recommendations ........................................... 61
National Research Council [Page 16]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
BOARD ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS -- COMPUTER
COMMITTEE ON COMPUTER-COMPUTER COMMUNICATION
C. CHAPIN CUTLER, Professor of Applied Physics,
University, Stanford,
HERBERT D. BENINGTON, Technical Director, System
Corporation, McLean,
DONALD L. BOYD, Director, Honeywell Corporate Computer
Center, Honeywell Corporate Technology Center, Bloomington
DAVID J. FARBER, Professor of Electrical Engineering and
of Computer Science, Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Delaware, Newark,
LAWRENCE H. LANDWEBER, Professor, Computer Sciences Department
University of Wisconsin, Madison,
ANTHONY G. LAUCK, Manager, Distributed Systems Architecture
Advanced Development, Digital Equipment Corporation, Tewksbury
KEITH A. LUCKE, General Manager of Control Data
Standards, Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis,
MISCHA SCHWARTZ, Professor of Electrical Engineering and
Science, Columbia University, New York, New
ROBERT F. STEEN, Director of Architecture, Communication
Division IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North
CARL A. SUNSHINE, Principal Engineer, Sytek, Incorporated,
Angeles Operation, Culver City,
DANIEL J. FINK, (Ex-officio), President, D.J. Fink Associates
Inc., Arlington,
JAMES L. FLANAGAN, (CETS LIAISON MEMBER), Head, Acoustics
Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New
National Research Council [Page 17]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
RICHARD B. MARSTEN, Executive
JEROME D. ROSENBERG, Senior Staff Officer and Study
LOIS A. LEAK, Administrative
National Research Council [Page 18]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL
BOARD ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS -- COMPUTER
DANIEL J. FINK, President, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc., Arlington
Past
BROCKWAY MCMILLAN, Vice President (Retired), Bell Laboratories
Sedgwick,
ARTHUR G. ANDERSON, Vice President (Retired), IBM Corporation,
Jose,
DANIEL BELL, Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences
Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge
HERBERT D. BENINGTON, Technical Director, System
Corporation, McLean,
ELWYN R. BERLEKAMP, Professor of Mathematics, Department
Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley,
ANTHONY J. DEMARIA, Assistant Director of Research for
and Electro-Optics Technology, United Technologies
Center, East Hartford,
GERALD P. DINNEEN, Vice President, Science and Technology
Honeywell Incorporated, Minneapolis,
GEORGE GERBNER, Professor and Dean, The Annenberg School
Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
ANNE P. JONES, Partner, Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan
Washington, D.C
ADRIAN M. MCDONOUGH, Professor of Management and Decision
(Retired), The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Havertown,
National Research Council [Page 19]
RFC 939 February 1985
Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on
WILBUR L. PRITCHARD, President, Satellite Systems Engineering
Inc., Bethesda,
MICHAEL B. PURSLEY, Professor of Electrical Engineering
University of Illinois, Urbana,
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Board, American Management Systems
Inc., Arlington,
MISCHA SCHWARTZ, Professor of Electrical Engineering and
Science, Columbia University, New York, New
ERIC E. SUMNER, Vice President, Operations System and
Planning, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New
KEITH W. UNCAPHER, Executive Director, USC-Information
Institute Associate Dean, School of Engineering, University
Southern California, Marina del Rey,
JAMES L. FLANAGAN, (CETS LIAISON MEMBER), Head, Acoustics
Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New
Richard B. Marsten, Executive
Jerome D. Rosenberg, Senior Staff
Karen Laughlin, Administrative
Carmen A. Ruby, Administrative
Lois A. Leak, Administrative
National Research Council [Page 20]
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
