File: rfc100.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20181229-2
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 570,944 kB
  • sloc: xml: 285,646; sh: 107; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 14
file content (2075 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 62,473 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075






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]