GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-1-1+1


rfc:rfc100

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

                Categorization and Guide to NWG/RFCs
 The NWG/RFC Guide is an attempt to introduce some order into the
 NWG/RFC series, which now numbers 102.  The Guide categorizes the
 NWG/RFC notes, identifies topics under discussion and the relevant
 NWG/RFCs, and indicates whether the notes are current, obsolete, or
 superseded.
 A minimum subset of NWG/RFCs is identified.  This subset consists of
 the NWG/RFCs that one should read to quickly become familiar with the
 current status of topics.
 For historical reasons and for readers interested in tracing through
 the stages of development of a topic, a brief summary is given for
 each NWG/RFC relevant to a particular category.
 This initial Guide is being issued as a NWG/RFC since it establishes
 the basis for future releases.  So, please comment! Suggestions,
 criticism, corrections, etc., will be accepted for a period of
 approximately two weeks.  Be critical as I have not had to implement
 an NCP and probably have some misconceptions regarding various
 technical points.  An official version will be released on March 26.
 The Guide will then be a unique series of documents, separate from
 NWG/RFCs (as is the Document No. 1, No. 2 series).
 With regard to renumbering NWG/RFCs, I am inclined to keep she
 sequential numbering scheme presently employed.  The main reason for
 this position is that the current numbers have both historical and
 semantic significance.  For example, reference to "#33, #66, #83,
 etc." is a convenient shorthand (reminiscent of the old corny joke
 about joke #s) used extensively during meetings.  The list of
 "current status" NWG/RFC numbers should dispel any fear of
 maintaining stacks of NWG/RFCs for quick reference.  The subject is
 not closed, however, and I will entertain any objections,
 suggestions, etc.

GUIDE TO NETWORK WORKING GROUP/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

 The NWG/RFC notes are partitioned into 9 categories, which in turn
 are divided into subcategories.  For each category the official
 document (if any), unresolved issues, and documents to be published
 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 brief
 description of the topics addressed in each note is given.
 The categories are again listed and the current NWG/RFCs identified
 (p. 23).  The NWG/RFCs in the list comprise the subset defining
 "current status".  Note that most of the documentation in the subset
 addresses topics in Category D - Subsystem Level Protocol, where at
 the present time most issues are unresolved.
 Finally, the NWG/RFCs are listed by number, with a reference to the
 relevant categories (p. 26).

A. ADMINISTRATIVE

A.1 Distribution list

 NWG/RFC #s: 3, 10, 16, 24, 27, 30, 37, 52, 69, 95
 The distribution list contains names, addresses, and phone numbers
 for recipients of NWG/RFCs.  The most recent list, NWG/RFC 95,
 designates the Technical Liaison as the recipient for each site and
 supersedes all other RFCs in this category.

A.2 Meeting announcements

 NWG/RFC #s: 35, 43, 45, 54, 75, 85, 87, 99
 General network working group meetings are held approximately every
 three months.  Special subcommittee meetings are held on an ad hoc
 basis.  All related NWG/RFCs are obsolete except 87, announcing a
 graphics meeting to be held at MIT in April and 99, announcing a
 general NWG meeting, Atlantic City, May 16-20.

A.3 Meeting minutes

 NWG/RFC #s: 21, 37, 63, 77, 82
 The meeting minutes present highlights of issues discussed at general
 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/RFCs

 NWG/RFC #s: 84, 100
 The NWG/RFC Guide categorizes the NWG/RFC notes, identifies topics
 under discussion, the relevant NWG/RFCs, and denotes whether the
 notes are current, obsolete, or superseded.  Included in this
 category are lists of NWG/RFCs, ordered by number (as in 84) and/or
 by author.

A.5 Policies

 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 issues
 i.e., the position taken by S. Crocker, NWG Chairman.  The issues
 covered are varied.
 In particular:
 77 and 82 discuss meeting policy.
 72, 73, 77, and 82 discuss the decision to delay making changes to
 the Host/Host protocol in order to first gain experience with the
 network.  A committee to propose specific changes has been formed.
 37 discusses changes to the Host/Host protocol and the schedule for
 introducing modifications.
 53 sets forth the mechanism for establishing and modifying the
 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 been
 superseded by 37 and 48. 18 is obsolete.
 102 discusses the issuing of Document #2, in lieu of the official
 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 - February
 1971)
 Unresolved issues: Location of first byte of data in a message.
 To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker and
 will, among other things, resolve the first byte location issue.

B.1 General Topics

 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,BBN
 responds to the questions.
 19 proposes that the hosts control the ordering of IMP/Host traffic
 rather than getting messages delivered in the order received by the
 IMP.  This proposal is counter to BBN's position, specifically
 expressed in 47; that is, buffering is a Host rather than an IMP
 function.  The purpose of buffering in the IMP is to handle surges of
 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 and
 the IMP.  NWG/RFC 47 comments on NWG/RFC 33.
 The use of RFNMs (type 10 and type 5 messages) to control flow is
 discussed in NWG/RFCs 36, 37 and 46.  The official position in "cease
 on link" (i.e., discontinue the mechanism) is presented in 102 and
 renders obsolete the remarks in 36, 37, and 46.
 38 discusses the changes to message format that would be necessary if
 multiplexing connections over links was allowed.

Karp [Page 4] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

B.2 Marking/Padding

 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 to
 abandon the marking convention and to ignore padding.  The issue of
 whether to have the first data byte begin after 72 bits of header or
 to use double physical transmission (NWG/RFC #s 65, 67) is discussed.
 The former official position is expressed in 54: "All regular
 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 a
 hardware modification to eliminate marking/padding by adding
 appropriate counters to Host/IMP interfaces. 65 suggests breaking
 regular messages into two messages. 67 supports 65. 72 and 73 suggest
 that such changes be postponed until sufficient experience with the
 network is gained.
 44 introduces the notion of double padding and presents two
 alternative approaches when a message does not end on a Host word
 boundary:
    a) The host provides padding in addition to the IMPS ("double
       padding")
    b) The host shifts messages to end on a word boundary.
 48 explains double padding in more detail and discusses the pros and
 cons.  A suggestion is made to use marking to adjust the word
 baundary (alternative b).  NWG/RFCs 49 and 50 are concurrences with
 48.
 70 presents a method to handle the stripping of padding from a
 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 for
 inter-Host interprocess communication over the network are
 established, maintained, and terminated.  The software which
 implements the protocol within each Host is called the Network

Karp [Page 5] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

 Control Program (NCP).  The topics included in this category are
 connection establishment and termination, flow control, interrupt
 handling, error control and status testing, dynamic reconnection, and
 the relationship between connections and links.
 Official documents: Document No. 1 by S. Crocker, 3 August 1970, with
 modifications presented in NWG/RFC 102.
 Unresolved issues: Length of control messages
                    Location in message of first byte of data
                    Flow control algorithm
                    Socket identification format
 To be published: Document No. 2 will be written by S. Crocker and
 will resolve the first three issues.  A NWG/RFC will be written by J.
 Heafner, in collaboration with E. Meyer and G. Grossman. presenting
 the pros and cons on alternative proposals for socket number
 identification.

C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals

 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 based
 on the proposals, discussions, acceptance, and rejection of ideas in
 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 message
 formats presented in 11.  The protocol was not considered powerful
 enough because it didn't provide for inter-host communication without
 logging in.  This protocol was thrown out as a result of a network
 meeting in December 1969.
 33 is the basis for the current protocol.  It was presented at the
 SJCC, 1970.
 36 is a modification of 33.  It discusses connection establishment
 without switching, flow control, and introduces the idea of
 reconnection.  Control commands are summarized. 36 was distributed at
 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 reconnection
 flow control and decoupling of links and connections.  Provisions of
 error detection, status testing, experimentation and expansions are
 discussed.
 38, 39, 40, 44, 49 and 50 are comments written in response to the
 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 in
 which the receiving host allocates buffer space and notifies the
 sending host of the space available.
 57 and 59 comment on 54.
 Document No. 1 differs from NWG/RFC 54 as follows: commands GVB and
 RET have been added for flow control and error condition codes have
 been added to ERR.  NWG/RFC 102 presents some modifications to
 Document No. 1: fixed lengths are specified for ECO, ERP, and ERR; a
 new pair of commands RST and RRP (suggested in 57) are added.
 60, 61, and 62 propose new Host/Host protocols, quite different from
 the current official protocol. 62 supersedes 61. 60 and 62 are worth
 considering for possible implementation in future protocols.
 Hopefully, more documents of a similar nature will be generated as
 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 the
 requirement of a message data type in the message sent from server
 socket 1.  The ambiguity is resolved by 102 which eliminates message
 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, table
 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 obsolete
 23 is a general statement on sending or receiving multiple control
 messages in a single communication.
 33 discusses the system calls used for interaction between the NCP
 and a user process.
 36 describes a possible implementation giving table structures and
 their interrelationships.
 44 lists the system calls that SDC feels should operate, includes
 spec. of calls to NCP.
 NWG/RFC 48 presents Postel's and Crocker's view on the environment in
 which a host time-sharing system operates, suggests some system
 calls, and presents a design to illustrate the components of an NCP.
 55 presents a prototypical NCP which implements the initial official
 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 to
 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) on
 the MIT Dynamic Modeling PDP-6/10 used to run some experiments.

C.3 Connection Establishment and Termination

 NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 50, 54, 60, 62
 The NWG/RFCs in this category present the system calls and control
 commands used to establish and terminate connections, i.e., the
 handshaking that must transpire before connections are established or
 terminated.
 In particular:
 36 presents a rough scenario of connection establishment which
 differs from that specified in 33 in that establishment does not
 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 two
 commands BLS and CLS be adopted.
 46, 46, and 50 all discuss queuing of RFCs.
 54 presents the initial official method for establishing and
 terminating connections.
 60 and 62 present schemes different from the official protocol.

C.4 Flow Control

 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 the
 flow of messages from the sending socket to the receive socket.  The
 official position is stated in Document No. 1 with an unresolved
 issue pending as described in NWG/RFC 102.
 In particular:
 19 suggests that Hosts may want the capability of agreeing to lock
 programs into core for more efficient core-to-core transfers.  This
 may require different handling of RFNMs.
 33 describes the use of RFNM (type 10 rather than 5) on a link to
 control flow.  A control command RSM (resume) is defined to allow the
 host to signal for resumption of message flow. 46 describes the same
 technique.
 37 describes the effect some proposed changes (for reconnect and
 decoupling of connections and links) would have on RFNMs and "cease
 on link."
 46 (MIT's rewrite of protocol) introduces BLK and RSM commands as an
 alternative to "cease on link", SPD and RSM commands.
 47 presents BBN's position that buffering be handled by the Host, not
 the IMP.
 54 introduces a new flow control mechanism in which the receiving
 host is required to allocate buffer space for each connection and not
 notify the sending host of bit sizes.  A new command, ALL to allocate
 space is sent from the receiving host to the sending host.  With this
 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 the
 flow control mechanism introduced in 54.  Their preference is for
 "cease on link" which allocates buffer space on demand.
 60, which defines a simplified NCP protocol, presents a method of
 flow control based on the requirement that connections are full
 duplex.
 65 comments on Document No. 1.  With respect to flow control, it
 disagrees with the allocation mechanism and the introduction of
 irregular message to make the cease mechanism work.
 68 proposes modifications to RFNM by defining three forms which would
 insure control of data and would replace the memory allocation
 mechanism.
 102 eliminates the cease mechanism and introduces potential
 modifications to the flow control mechanism.  The latter will be
 resolved and presented in Document No. 2.

C.5 Error Control and Status Testing

 NWG/RFC #s: 2, 37, 39, 40, 46, 48, 54, 57, 102
 This category addresses schemes for detecting and controlling errors
 and for Host status reporting and testing.
 In particular:
 2 talks about error checking and gives an algorithm for implementing
 a checksum.  It also recommends that Hosts should have a mode in
 which positive verification of all messages is required.
 37 brings up the topics of error detection and status testing, which
 are expanded by RAND in 39 and 40. 39 introduces control commands ERR
 for error checking and QRY, HCU, and HGD for status testing. 40
 expands on the discussion, suggests error codes, introduces RPY as a
 response to QRY, and suggests that NOP could be used for reporting
 Host status.
 46 concurs with 40 on ERR and introduces ECO to test communication
 between NCPs.
 48 recommends that ERR, as presented in 40 and 46, be adopted, that a
 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.  The
 official protocol doesn't include a specific list of error types nor
 does it recommend the action to be taken.  Suggestions for extensions
 to error detection and recovery and Host/Host status testing are
 encouraged.
 57 presents a list of error types and suggests new commands OVF for
 overflow errors and RST/RSR for host status testing.
 102 sets fixed lengths for ERR, ECO, and ERP control commands.  RST
 and RSR are adopted.

C.6 Interrupt

 NWG/RFC #s: 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 102
 The interrupt system call and the INT control commands are used to
 interrupt a process.  This is actually a third level issue.  The
 NWG/RFCs leading up to the decision to include INR and INS in the
 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 feature
 should not be used during communication with systems which scan for
 interrupts and that INT should not be used on non-console type
 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 an
 escape mechanism, where interpretation is a local matter.
 102 discusses synchronization of interrupt signals, presents two
 implementation schemes, and relegates the topic to third level
 protocol.  INS should be used to indicate a special code in the input
 stream.

C.7 Dynamic Reconnection

 NWG/RFC #s: 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50
 The notion of dynamic reconnection was introduced early in the
 Host/Host protocol design.  However, the consensus was that it
 introduced complexities with which the initial NCP implementations

Karp [Page 11] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

 did not want to cope.  The need for dynamic reconnection was
 questioned; NWG/RFC 48 explains why it was included and considered
 useful.
 In particular:
 33 introduces the concept of switching connections to the Logger. 36
 presents a scheme for dynamic reconnection, i.e., reconnection can
 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 that
 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 that
 the cases be separated, and recommends implementation of only the
 case of a simple connection switch within the same Host.
 46 recommends that dynamic reconnection be reserved for further
 Host/Host protocol implementations.
 48 discusses the aesthetics of dynamic reconnection in detail but
 concedes that it won't be included in the initial protocol. 49 and 50
 concur with the decision.

C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links

 NWG/RFC #s: 37, 38, 44, 48
 A connection is an extension of a link.  The NWG/RFCs in this
 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 cases
 where this would be useful are presented.  The effect on the proposed
 protocol is discussed.  Both 37 and 38 suggest the inclusion of the
 destination socket as part of the text of the message and recommend
 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 socket
 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

 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 for
 experimentation and expansion is discussed in NWG/RFC #s 37 and 48.
 Instance Tag: The addition of an instance tag to the socket
 identifier is introduced in 46, is supported by 49 and 50, and is not
 recommended in 48.  The matter is unresolved (see "To be published",
 section C).
 Broadcast Facility: A control command to implement a broadcast
 facility as introduced in 39.  It was not supported in 48.

D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL (LEVEL 3)

 Official document: none
 Unresolved issues: all
 To be published: Three committees have been set up to address user
 level issues, specifically: logger, console, and TELNET protocols
 (D.1, D.2, D.3); data transformation (D.4); and, graphics protocol
 (D.6).  Status reports will be published prior to the next Network
 meeting (May 1971).  In addition, a companion paper to 98 discussing
 console protocol has been promised by MIT MAC and G. Grossman (Ill.)
 will issue an RFC proposing a file transmission protocol.

D.1 Logger Protocol

 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 gets
 connected to a remote Host.  The logger is a process, always in
 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 then
 switches to the assigned socket.  The sequence of events is
 illustrated.
 46 proposes a User Control and Communication (UCC) module, which
 implements logger protocol and permits the logger to interact with
 the NCP.  It proposes the use of two full-duplex pseudo-typewriter
 connections.
 48 proposes that sockets <U, H, 0> and <U, H, 1> designate either the
 input and output sockets of a copy of the logger or the console
 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 reverts
 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-duplex
 connection.  The logger handles one request at a time; requests are
 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 another
 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 also
 suggests that ICP should apply to more than just the logger i.e., let
 user 0 signify the logger.
 88 documents the logger implemented as part of NETRJS, which allows
 access to RJS at UCLA's CCN.  The ICP described in 66 and 80 is
 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.  The
 ambiguity is rectified by NG/RFC 102.
 97 includes the ICP (as proposed in 80) used to establish connection
 to NIC.
 98 is the logger protocol proposal issued by E. Meyer.

D.2 Console Protocol

 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 the
 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 high
 order bit 0.
 44 discusses three possibilities for echoing over the network
 (echoing, no echoing, optional echoing) and states a preference for
 no echoing. 44 also states a preference for establishing a network
 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 interrupt
 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 third
 level protocol.
 50 and 56 support adoption of ASCII for the network standard
 character set. 56 also discusses two uses of break characters
 (interrupt): in a panic situation and to exit from subsystem.  Three
 message formats (character by character, end by carriage return,
 several command lines per message) are discussed.  A recommendation
 that echoing be handled locally is made.
 66 specifies that the standard console use 7-bit ASCII in 8 bits with
 the 8th bit on (note the conflict with 20).  It also specifies the
 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 half
 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 and
 addresses full vs half duplex, character escapes, and action
 characters.

D.3 TELNET Protocol

 NWG/RFC #s: 15, 33, 76, 80, 83, 91, 96, 97
 TELNET is a subsystem permitting a teletype-like terminal at a remote
 Host for function as a teletype at the serving Host.  TELNET protocol
 specifies user level interface to the network by way of network
 system calls.
 In particular:
 15 introduces the TELNET concept and presents a sample dialogue
 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 user
 to utilize the network at a symbolic level.
 80 and 83 introduce the concept of a Protocol Manager that can manage
 protocol sequences between consoles and the network.  The Form
 Machine (see D.4) can be used for translations.
 91 contains a proposal for a User/User protocol that has the ability
 to function as TELNET.
 96 describes a series of experiments to be conducted using the TELNET
 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 Machines

 NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 42, 51, 63, 80, 83, 96
 NIL, DEL, and Form Machines are proposals of similar methods for
 adapting user programs and/or data to the network.  A committee
 chaired by J. Heafner has been formed to plan, implement, and
 exercise a language for reconfiguring data streams.
 In particular:
 NIL (Network Interchange Language), described in 51, introduces the
 concept of an abstract network machine which would permit a user to
 consider the computer network as an overall computing facility.  All
 dialogue would take place between hosts and the network machine.  NIL
 permits the description of the environment and the description of the
 Front End of an interactive system.  Sublanguages for describing
 control, operation, data declaration, and environment are used.  With
 NIL, the network machine can operate in standard mode as well as
 user-defined extended mode.  The network machine can act as a user of
 a Host; conversely, a Host can be a user of a network machine.  Each
 Host will have a generator to generate a translator from the
 descriptive sublanguage inputs.
 DEL (Decode - Encode Language), described in 5, utilizes a front end
 translator at the using site to translate the using site characters
 to the server host character set.  Return messages are subsequently
 translated locally to the local standard.  Immediate feedback in an
 interactive mode is also handled locally.  DEL can be used for the
 operation of large display-oriented systems.  Provisions are given
 for representing a universal hardware.  The syntax is included.
 Two proposals for the Form Machine have been given. 80 introduces the
 concept of the Form Machine, an experimental software package
 operating on regular expressions that describe data formats. 83
 presents a different approach: a syntax-driven interpreter which
 operates on a grammar which is an _ordered_ set of replacement rules.
 83 contains a description of the Form Machine with some examples of
 replacement rules for particular data types.  Application of the
 Form-Machine to program protocols is also discussed.
 31 proposes a message description language as a standard symbolic
 method for defining and describing binary messages.  In the future,
 the descriptive language could be used as input to generators of data
 translation programs.
 42 proposes the use of message data types prior to the development of
 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 data
 accordingly.  Both standard and local types would be handled (as in
 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 that
 further study be given to standard languages as presented in 51.

D.5 Record/Message Boundaries

 NWG/RFC #s: 13, 49, 50, 58, 63, 77, 82, 91
 Positions that no special structures should be imposed on data
 transmission are presented in 49 and 91. 50 and 58 disagree. 58
 claims that logical and physical message distinctions exist and that
 logical messages must begin on a physical message boundary.
 63 reports a decision from a meeting that records may begin anywhere
 in a message.  In a later meeting, 77 and 82, the issue was reopened.
 Discussion included consideration of methods of indicating the end of
 message and alternatives were given.  Earlier RFCs had discussed
 these alternatives: 13 proposes a 0 length message to specify EOF; 50
 proposes use of a bit count preceding the transmission and discusses
 solutions to the problem of dropping bits.

D.6 Network Graphics

 NWG/RFC #s: 43, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 94
 Proposals specifying network graphics protocol are in the formative
 stages.
 In particular:
 43 mentions LIL, in interpretable language at Lincoln Labs that can
 handle interactive graphics.
 77 and 82 discuss the formation of a working group to specify
 procedures for using graphics over the network.
 80 states that graphics oriented descriptions will added to the Form
 Machine.
 86 is a proposal for a network standard format for a data stream to
 control graphics displays. 87 announces a network graphics meeting to
 be hosted by MIT and suggests discussion topics.  Both 86 and 87 are
 attempts to stimulate some interest in the generation of graphics
 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 Transmission

 NWG/RFC #s: 13, 38, 77, 82, 91
 The subject of file transmission over the network is at the informal
 discussion stage.  Nothing substantive has been published as NWG/RFCs
 om this category.
 In particular:
 13 proposes using a 0 length message to specify EOF.
 38 recommends routing multiple connections over the same link to
 handle file transmissions over the network.
 77 and 82 summarize comments on file transmission problems aired at
 the Network meeting in Houston, Nov. 1970.
 91 describes how PDP-10 file transmission could be handled over the
 network.

E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK

 Official document: none
 Unresolved issues: Should NCPs be altered to keep measurement
 statistics?

E.1 General

 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 are
 officially responsible for gathering network statistics.  Is it
 reasonable to alter the NCP to keep statistics?

E.2 Clock

 NWG/RFC #s: 28, 29, 32, 34
 The NWG/RFCs in this category discuss requirements for a clock to
 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 ARC
 and requests comments concerning network time standards for delay
 measurement.
 29 responds to 28, stating that a millisecond clock should be
 sufficient.
 32 discusses the desirability of adding a network clock for
 measurement of user-oriented message delays.  A one millisecond
 resolution is a reasonable specification.  The problems of clock
 synchronization and long term accuracy are addressed.
 34 describes the SRI ARC clock on the XDS 940.

F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE

 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 category
 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 Dynamic
 Modelling/Computer Graphics PDP-6/10 System and the Harvard PDP-10.

G. SITE DOCUMENTATION

 Official document.  None
 Unresolved issues: Procedures for entering documentation at NIC.
 To be published.  Dick Watson, SRI ARC, will publish documentation
 specifications and procedures.

G.1 General

 NWG/RFC #s 77, 82
 77 and 82 contain general comments on storing system documentation
 on-line.

Karp [Page 20] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

G.2 NIC

 NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
 77 and 82 contain summaries of Engelbart's discussion of NIC at the
 Network meeting in Houston, November, 1970.
 96 and 97 contain details of third level protocol implementation of
 NLS (NIC).

G.3 UCSB

 NWG/RFC #s: 74
 74 presents specifications for network use of the UCSB On-Line System
 (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 Network
 Service Center.

G.5 University of Illinois

 NWG/RFC #s: 76
 76 describes the PDP-11 ARPA Network Terminal System implementation.

H. ACCOUNTING

 To be published: B. Kahn, BBN, will generate an RFC discussing
 important considerations for an accounting mechanism.
 NWG.RFC #s: 77, 82
 This topic will be addressed by the long-range Host/Host protocol
 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 than
 Research Centers.

Karp [Page 21] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

I. OTHER

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

I.1 Hardware

 NWG/RFC #s: 12, 64
 12 contains diagrams that indicate the logical sequence of hardware
 operations which occur within the IMP/Host interface.
 64 proposes a hardware solution to getting rid of marking. 64 has
 been superseded by 102.

I.2 Request for References

 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/RFCs
 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. ADMINISTRATIVE
    A.1 Distribution List
          NWG/RFC #s: 95
    A.2 Meeting Announcements
          NWG/RFC #s: 87, 99
    A.3 Meeting Minutes
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
    A.4 Guide to NWG/RFCs
          NWG/RFC #s: 100
    A.5 Policies
          NWG/RFC #s: 30, 41, 53, 77, 82, 102
 B. HOST/IMP PROTOCOL
    Official document: BBN Memo No. 1822
    B.1 General
          NWG/RFC #s: 33, 47, 102
    B.2 Marking/Padding
          NWG/RFC #s: 102
 C. HOST/HOST PROTOCOL
    Official document: Document No. 1, S. Crocker, 3 August 1970
    C.1 Host/Host Protocol Proposals
          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 Termination
          NWG/RFC #s: 54
    C.4 Flow Control

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 Testing
          NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
    C.6 Interrupt
          NWG/RFC #s: 54, 102
    C.7 Dynamic Reconnection
          NWG/RFC #s: 47
    C.8 Relation Between Connections and Links
          NWG/RFC #s: 48
 D. SUBSYSTEM LEVEL PROTOCOL
    D.1 Logger Protocol
          NWG/RFC #s: 56, 66, 80,98
    D.2 Console Protocol
          NWG/RFC #s: 66, 77, 82, 96, 97, 98
    D.3 TELNET Protocol
          NWG/RFC #s: 33, 96, 97
    D.4 NIL, DEL, Form Machines
          NWG/RFC #s: 5, 31, 51, 83
    D.5 Record/Message Boundaries
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
    D.6 Network Graphics
          NWG/RFC #s: 86, 87, 94
    D.7 File Transmission
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 91
 E. MEASUREMENT ON NETWORK
    E.1 General
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
    E.2 Clock
          NWG/RFC #s: 32
 F. NETWORK EXPERIENCE
          NWG/RFC #s: 78, 89

Karp [Page 24] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

 G. SITE DOCUMENTATION
    G.1 General
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
    G.2 NIC
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82, 96, 97
    G.3 UCSB
          NWG/RFC #s: 74
    G.4 CCN (UCLA)
          NWG/RFC #s: 88, 90
    G.5 Illinois
          NWG/RFC #s: 76
 H. ACCOUNTING
          NWG/RFC #s: 77, 82
 I. OTHER
    I.1 Hardware
          NWG/RFC #s: 12
    I.2 Request for References
          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 Topics
 NWG/RFC 1:    HOST Software
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                       7 April 1969
               Obsolete
 NWG/RFC 2:    HOST Software
               B. Duvall (SRI)                         9 April 1969
               C.5, otherwise obsolete
 NWG/RFC 3:    Documentation Conventions
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                       9 April 1969
               A.1
 NWG/RFC 4:    Network Timetable
               E. Shapiro (SRI)                       24 March 1969
               Obsolete
  • NWG/RFC 5: DEL

J. Rulifson (SRI) 2 June 1969

               D.4
 NWG/RFC 6:    Conversation with Bob Kahn
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                      10 April 1969
               Obsolete
 NWG/RFC 7:    HOST/IMP Interface
               G. Deloche (UCLA)                         5 May 1969
               Obsolete
 NWG/RFC 8:    ARPA Network Functional Specifications
               G. Deloche (UCLA)                         5 May 1969
               Obsolete
  • 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 Software
               G. Deloche (UCLA)                         1 May 1969
               C.1 C.2
 NWG/RFC 10:   Documentation Conventions
               S. Crocker                              29 July 1969
               A.1
 NWG/RFC 11:   Implementation of the HOST-HOST Software Procedures in
               GORDO
               G. Deloche (UCLA)                      1 August 1969
               C.1 C.2
  • NWG/RFC 12: IMP/HOST Interface Flow Diagram

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 HOSTS
               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 Protocol
 17a
               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 Reduce
                     Congestion at Swap-bound Nodes
               J. E. Kreznar (SDC)                   7 October 1969
               B.1 C.4
 NWG/RFC 20:   ASCII Format for Network Interchange
               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 Formats
               V. Cerf (UCLA)                       17 October 1969
               C.1 C.2
 NWG/RFC 23:   Transmission of Multiple Control Messages
               G. Gregg (UCSB)                      16 October 1969
               C.2
 NWG/RFC 24:   Documentation Conventions
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                   21 November 1969
               A.1 A.5
 NWG/RFC 25:   No High Link Numbers
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                    30 October 1969
               A.5
 NWG/RFC 26:   (never issued)
 NWG/RFC 27:   Documentation Conventions
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                    6 December 1969
               A.1  A.5
 NWG/RFC 28:   Time Standards
               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's
                     Request for Comments
               R. Kahn (BBN)                        19 January 1970
               E.1
 NWG/RFC 30:   Documentation Conventions
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                    4 February 1970
               A.1 A.5
  • NWG/RFC 31: Binary Message Forms in Computer Networks

D. Borrow (BBN)

               W.R. Sutherland (LINC)                 February 1968
               D.4
  • NWG/RFC 32: Connecting M.I.T. Computers to the ARPA

Computer-to-Computer Communication Network

               D. Vedder (MAC)                      31 January 1969
               E.1
  • NWG/RFC 33: New HOST-HOST Protocol

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 Clock
               B. English (ARC)                    26 February 1970
               E.1
 NWG/RFC 35:   Network Meeting
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                       3 March 1970
               A.2
 NWG/RFC 36:   Protocol Notes
               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 Protocol
               E. Harslem (RAND)
               J. Heafner (RAND)                      27 March 1970
               C.1 C.5
  • NWG/RFC 41: IMP-IMP Teletype Communication

J. Melvin (ARC) 30 March 1970

               A.5
 NWG/RFC 42:   Message Data Types
               E. I. Ancona (LINC)                    31 March 1970
               D.4
 NWG/RFC 43:   Proposed Meeting
               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 Coming
               J. Postel (UCLA)
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                      14 April 1970
               A.2
 NWG/RFC 46:   ARPA Network Protocol Notes
               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 Plateau

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 Crocker
               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 Proposal
               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 Language

M. Elie (UCLA) 4 May 1970

               D.4
 NWG/RFC 52:   Updated Distribution List
               S. Crocker, J. Postel                    1 July 1970
               A.1
  • NWG/RFC 53: An Official Protocol Mechanism

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 Proffering

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 NCP

J. Newkirk, et al (HARV) 19 June 1970

               C.2
  • NWG/RFC 56: Third Level Protocol

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 Synchronization
               T. P. Skinner (MAC)                     26 June 1970
               D.5
 NWG/RFC 59:   Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation
               E. W. Meyer Jr.                         27 June 1970
               C.1 C.4
  • NWG/RFC 60: A Simplified NCP Protocol

R. Kalin (LINC) 13 July 1970

               C.1 C.3 C.4
 NWG/RFC 61:   A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource
               Sharing Computer Network
               D. Walden (BBN)                         17 July 1970
               superseded by 62
  • NWG/RFC 62: A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource

Sharing Computer Network Sharing Computer Network

               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 Report
               V. Cerf (UCLA)                          31 July 1970
               A.3 D.4 D.5
 NWG/RFC 64:   Getting Rid of Marking
               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 Noise

S. Crocker (UCLA) 26 August 1970

               D.1 D.2
 NWG/RFC 67:   Proposed Changes to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate Marking
               W. Crowther (BBN)                          (undated)
               B.2
 NWG/RFC 68:   Comments on Memory Allocation Control Commands
                     (CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and RFNM
               M. Elie (UCLA)                        31 August 1970
 NWG/RFC 69:   Distribution List Change for MIT
               A. Bhushan (MAC)                   22 September 1970
               A.1
 NWG/RFC 70:   A Note on Padding
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                    15 October 1970
               B.2 C.2
 NWG/RFC 71:   Reallocation in Case of Input Error
               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 Protocol
               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-Line

Systems

               J. White                             16 October 1970
               D.1 D.2 G.3
 NWG/RFC 75:   Network Meeting
               S. Crocker (UCLA)                    14 October 1970
               A.2
  • NWG/RFC 76: Connection-By-Name: User-Oriented Protocol

J. Bouknight et al., (ILL) 28 October 1970

               D.3 G.5
  • NWG/RFC 77: Network Meeting Report

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 H
  • NWG/RFC 78: NCP Status Report: UCSB/RAND

E. Harslem et al., (RAND) (undated)

               F
 NWG/RFC 79:   Logger Protocol Error
               E. W. Meyer, Jr. (MAC)              16 November 1970
               D.1
  • NWG/RFC 80: Protocols and Data Formats

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 Information

J. Bauknight (Ill.) 3 December 1970

               I.2
  • NWG/RFC 82: Network Meeting Notes

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 H
  • NWG/RFC 83: Language - Machine for Data Reconfiguration

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 Meeting
               S. Crocker (ULA)                    28 December 1970
               A.2
  • NWG/RFC 86: Proposal for a Network Standard Format for a Data

Stream to Control Graphics Display

               S. Crocker (UCLA)                     5 January 1971
               D.6
  • NWG/RFC 87: Topics for Discussion at the Next Network Working

Group Meeting

               A. Vezza (MAC)                       12 January 1971
               A.2 D.6
  • NWG/RFC 88: NETRJS - A Third Level Protocol for Remote Job Entry

R. Braden, S. M. Wolfe (UCLA) 13 January 1971

               D1.  D.2 G.4
  • NWG/RFC 89: Some Historic Moments in Networking

B. Metcalfe (MAC, Harvard) 19 January 1971

               C.2 D.6 F

Karp [Page 35] RFC 100 Categorization & Guide to NWG/RFC's 26 February 1971

  • NWG/RFC 90: CCN as a Network Service Center

R. T. Braden (UCLA) 25 January 1971

               G.4
  • NWG/RFC 91: A Proposed User-User Protocol

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 Protocol
               A. McKenzie (BBN)                    27 January 1971
               D.1
  • NWG/RFC 94: Some Thoughts on Network Graphics

E. Harslem, J. Heafner (RAND) 3 February 1971

               D.6
  • NWG/RFC 95: Distribution of NWG/RFC's Through the NIC

S. Crocker 4 February 1971

               A.1
  • NWG/RFC 96: An Interactive Network Experiment to Study Modes of

Accessing the Network Information Center

               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 Protocol

J. Melvin, D. Watson (SRI-ARC) 15 February 1971

               D.1 D.2 D.3 G.2
  • NWG/RFC 98: Logger Protocol Proposal

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 Meeting

P. Karp 22 February 1971

               A.2
  • NWG/RFC 100: Categorization and Guide to NG/RFCs

P. Karp (MITRE) 20 February 1971

               A.4
 NWG/RFC 101:  (Not Received)
  • NWG/RFC 102: Output of Host/Host Protocol Glitch

Cleaning Committee

               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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc100.txt · Last modified: 2000/12/05 20:13 (external edit)