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
|
<pre>Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 899 A. Westine
ISI
May 1984
<span class="h1">Requests For Comments Summary</span>
<span class="h1">Notes: 800-899</span>
Status of this Memo
This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from <a href="./rfc800">RFC 800</a>
through <a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a>. This is a status report on these RFCs.
RFC Author Date Title
--- ------ ---- -----
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-899" href="#section-899">899</a> Postel </span> Apr 84 Requests For Comments Summary
This memo.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-898" href="#section-898">898</a> Hinden </span> Apr 84 Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting
Notes
This memo is a report on the Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting
that was held at ISI on 28 and 29 February 1984. Robert Hinden of
BBNCC chaired, and Jon Postel of ISI hosted the meeting.
Approximately 35 gateway designers and implementors attended. These
notes are based on the recollections of Jon Postel and Mike Muuss.
Under each topic area are Jon Postel's brief notes, and additional
details from Mike Muuss. This memo is a report on a meeting. No
conclusions, decisions, or policy statements are documented in this
note.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-897" href="#section-897">897</a> Postel </span> Feb 84 Domain Name System Implementation
Schedule
This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Domain
Style Naming System in the Internet. This memo is a partial update
of <a href="./rfc881">RFC 881</a>. The intent of this memo is to detail the schedule for
the implementation for the Domain Style Naming System. The names of
hosts will be changed to domain style names. Hosts will begin to use
domain style names on 14-Mar-84, and the use of old style names will
be completely phased out before 2-May-84. This applies to both the
ARPA research hosts and the DDN operational hosts. This is an
official policy statement of the ICCB and the DARPA.
Postel & Westine [page 1]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-896" href="#section-896">896</a> Nagle </span> Jan 84 Congestion Control in IP/TCP
Internetworks
This memo discusses some aspects of congestion control in IP/TCP
Internetworks. It is intended to stimulate thought and further
discussion of this topic. While some specific suggestions are made
for improved congestion control implementation, this memo does not
specify any standards.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-895" href="#section-895">895</a> Postel </span> Apr 84 A Standard for the Transmission of
IP Datagrams over Experimental Ethernet
Networks
This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet
Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Experimental Ethernet. This RFC
specifies a standard protocol for the ARPA Internet community.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-894" href="#section-894">894</a> Hornig </span> Apr 84 A Standard for the Transmission of
IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks
This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet
Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Ethernet. This RFC specifies a
standard protocol for the ARPA-Internet community.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-893" href="#section-893">893</a> Leffler </span> Apr 84 Trailer Encapsulations
This RFC discusses the motivation for use of "trailer encapsulations"
on local-area networks and describes the implementation of such an
encapsulation on various media. This document is for information
only. This is NOT an official protocol for the ARPA Internet
community.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-892" href="#section-892">892</a> ISO </span> Dec 83 ISO Transport Protocol Specification
This is a draft version of the transport protocol being standardized
by the ISO. This version also appeared in the ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review (V.12, N.3-4) July-October 1982. This version
is now out of date.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-891" href="#section-891">891</a> Mills </span> Dec 83 DCN Local-Network Protocols
This RFC provides a description of the DCN protocols for maintaining
connectivity, routing, and clock information in a local network.
These procedures may be of interest to the designers and implementers
of other local networks.
Postel & Westine [page 2]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-890" href="#section-890">890</a> Postel </span> Feb 84 Exterior Gateway Protocol
Implementation Schedule
This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Exterior
Gateway Protocol in the Internet. This is an official policy
statement of ICCB and DARPA. After 1-Aug-84 there shall be no dumb
gateways in the Internet. Every gateway must be a member of some
autonomous system. Some gateway of each autonomous system must
exchange routing information with some gateway of the core autonomous
system using the Exterior Gateway Protocol.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-889" href="#section-889">889</a> Mills </span> Dec 83 Internet Delay Experiments
This memo reports on some measurements of round-trip times in the
Internet and suggests some possible improvements to the TCP
retransmission timeout calculation. This memo is both a status
report on the Internet and advice to TCP implementers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-888" href="#section-888">888</a> Seamonson </span> Jan 84 "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol
This RFC describes the Exterior Gateway Protocol used to connect Stub
Gateways to an Autonomous System of core Gateways. This document
specifies the working protocol, and defines an ARPA official
protocol. All implementers of Gateways should carefully review this
document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-887" href="#section-887">887</a> Accetta </span> Dec 83 Resource Location Protocol
This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.
It describes a resource location protocol for use in the ARPA
Internet. It is most useful on networks employing technologies which
support some method of broadcast addressing, however it may also be
used on other types of networks. For maximum benefit, all hosts
which provide significant resources or services to other hosts on the
Internet should implement this protocol. Hosts failing to implement
the Resource Location Protocol risk being ignored by other hosts
which are attempting to locate resources on the Internet.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-886" href="#section-886">886</a> Rose </span> Dec 83 Proposed Standard for Message Header
Munging
This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.
It describes the rules to be used when transforming mail from the
conventions of one message system to those of another message system.
In particular, the treatment of header fields, and recipient
addresses is specified.
Postel & Westine [page 3]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-885" href="#section-885">885</a> Postel </span> Dec 83 Telnet End of Record Option
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. It
specifies a method for marking the end of records in data transmitted
on Telnet connections.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-884" href="#section-884">884</a> Solomon </span> Dec 83 Telnet Terminal Type Option
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. It
specifies a method for exchanging terminal type information in the
Telnet protocol.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-883" href="#section-883">883</a> Mockapetris </span>Nov 83 Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification
This RFC discusses the implementation of domain name servers and
resolvers, specifies the format of transactions, and discusses the
use of domain names in the context of existing mail systems and other
network software.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-882" href="#section-882">882</a> Mockapetris </span>Nov 83 Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities
This RFC introduces domain style names, their use for ARPA Internet
mail and host address support, and the protocol and servers used to
implement domain name facilities.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-881" href="#section-881">881</a> Postel </span> Nov 83 The Domain Names Plan and Schedule
This RFC outlines a plan and schedule for the implementation of
domain style names throughout the DDN/ARPA Internet community. The
introduction of domain style names will impact all hosts on the
DDN/ARPA Internet.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-880" href="#section-880">880</a> Reynolds </span> Oct 83 Official Protocols
This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
used in the ARPA Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or
changes planned. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc840">RFC 840</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-879" href="#section-879">879</a> Postel </span> Nov 83 The TCP Maximum Segment Size and
Related Topics
This RFC discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and related
topics. The purposes is to clarify some aspects of TCP and its
interaction with IP. This memo is a clarification to the TCP
specification, and contains information that may be considered as
"advice to implementers".
Postel & Westine [page 4]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-878" href="#section-878">878</a> Malis </span> Dec 83 The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a
successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol. The 1822L
procedure allows ARPANET hosts to use logical identifiers as well as
1822 physical interface identifiers to address each other.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-877" href="#section-877">877</a> Korb </span> Sep 83 A Standard for the Transmission of IP
Datagrams Over Public Data Networks
This RFC specifies a standard adopted by CSNET, the VAN gateway, and
other organizations for the transmission of IP datagrams over the
X.25-based public data networks.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-876" href="#section-876">876</a> Smallberg </span> Sep 83 Survey of SMTP Implementations
This RFC is a survey of implementation status. It does not specify
an official protocol, but rather notes the status of implementation
of aspects of a protocol. It is expected that the status of the
hosts reported on will change. This information must be treated as a
snapshot of the state of these implemetations.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-875" href="#section-875">875</a> Padlipsky </span> Sep 82 Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalumps
This RFC is a discussion about the role of gateways in an
internetwork, especially the problems of translating or mapping
protocols between different protocol suites. The discussion notes
possible functionality mis-matches, undesirable routing "singularity
points", flow control issues, and high cost of translating gateways.
Originally published as M82-51 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford,
Massachusetts.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-874" href="#section-874">874</a> Padlipsky </span> Sep 82 A Critique of X.25
This RFC is an analysis of X.25 pointing out some problems in the
conceptual model, particularly the conflict between the interface
aspects and the end-to-end aspects. The memo also touches on
security, and implementation issues. Originally published as M82-50
by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-873" href="#section-873">873</a> Padlipsky </span> Sep 82 The Illusion of Vendor Support
This memo takes issue with the claim that international standards in
computer protocols presently provide a basis for low cost vendor
supported protocol implementations. Originally published as M82-49
by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
Postel & Westine [page 5]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-872" href="#section-872">872</a> Padlipsky </span> Sep 82 TCP-ON-A-LAN
This memo attacks the notion that TCP cannot be appropriate for use
on a Local Area Network. Originally published as M82-48 by the MITRE
Corporation, Bedford Massachusetts.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-871" href="#section-871">871</a> Padlipsky </span> Sep 82 A Perspective on the Arpanet Reference
Model
This RFC is primarily intended as a perspective on the ARM and points
out some of the differences between the ARM and the ISORM which were
expressed by members in NWG general meetings, NWG protocol design
committee meetings, the ARPA Internet Working Group, and private
conversations over the intervening years. Originally published as
M82-47 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-870" href="#section-870">870</a> Reynolds </span> Oct 83 Assigned Numbers
This RFC documents the list of numbers assigned for networks,
protocols, etc. Obsoletes RFCs 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755,
750, 739, 604.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-869" href="#section-869">869</a> Hinden </span> Dec 83 A Host Monitoring Protocol
This RFC specifies the Host Monitoring Protocol used to collect
information from various types of hosts in the Internet. Designers
of Internet communications software are encouraged to consider this
protocol as a means of monitoring the behavior of their creations.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-868" href="#section-868">868</a> Postel </span> May 83 Time Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Time Protocol are
expected to adopt and implement this standard. This protocol
provides a site-independent, machine readable date and time. The
Time service sends back to the originating source the time in seconds
since midnight on January first 1900.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-867" href="#section-867">867</a> Postel </span> May 83 Daytime Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Daytime Protocol are
expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Daytime service
simply sends the current date and time as a character string without
regard to the input.
Postel & Westine [page 6]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-866" href="#section-866">866</a> Postel </span> May 83 Active Users
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement an Active Users
Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The
Active Users service simply sends a list of the currently active
users on the host without regard to the input.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-865" href="#section-865">865</a> Postel </span> May 83 Quote of the Day Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Quote of the Day
Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The
Quote of the Day service simply sends a short message without regard
to the input.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-864" href="#section-864">864</a> Postel </span> May 83 Character Generator Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Character Generator
Protocol are expected to adopt and implement this standard. The
Character Generator service simply sends data without regard to the
input.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-863" href="#section-863">863</a> Postel </span> May 83 Discard Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Discard Protocol are
expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Discard service
simply throws away any data it receives.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-862" href="#section-862">862</a> Postel </span> May 83 Echo Protocol
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Echo Protocol are
expected to adopt and implement this standard. The Echo service
simply sends back to the originating source any data it receives.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-861" href="#section-861">861</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Extended Options - List Option
This Telnet Option provides a mechanism for extending the set of
possible options. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
and implement this standard. Obsoletes NIC 16239.
Postel & Westine [page 7]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-860" href="#section-860">860</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Timing Mark Option
This Telnet Option provides a way to check the roundtrip path between
two Telnet modules. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
and implement this standard. Obsoletes NIC 16238.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-859" href="#section-859">859</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Status Option
This Telnet Option provides a way to determine the other Telnet
module's view of the status of options. This RFC specifies a
standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet
are expected to adopt and implement this standard. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc651">RFC 651</a>
(NIC 31154).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-858" href="#section-858">858</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option
This Telnet Option disables the exchange of go-ahead signals between
the Telnet modules. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA
Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt
and implement this standard. Obsoletes NIC 15392.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-857" href="#section-857">857</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Echo Option
This Telnet Option enables remote echoing by the other Telnet module.
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts
on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this
standard. Obsoletes NIC 15390.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-856" href="#section-856">856</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Binary Transmission
This Telnet Option enables a binary data mode between the Telnet
modules. This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet
community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and
implement this standard. Obsoletes NIC 15389.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-855" href="#section-855">855</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Option Specifications
This memo specifies the general form for Telnet options and the
directions for their specification. This RFC specifies a standard
for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are
expected to adopt and implement this standard. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc651">RFC 651</a>,
NIC 18640.
Postel & Westine [page 8]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-854" href="#section-854">854</a> Postel </span> May 83 Telnet Protocol Specifications
This is the specification of the Telnet protocol used for remote
terminal access in the ARPA Internet. The purpose of the TELNET
Protocol is to provide a fairly general, bi-directional, eight-bit
byte oriented communications facility. Its primary goal is to allow
a standard method of interfacing terminal devices and
terminal-oriented processes to each other. It is envisioned that the
protocol may also be used for terminal-terminal communication
("linking") and process-process communication (distributed
computation). This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet
community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and
implement this standard. Obsoletes NIC 18639.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-853" href="#section-853">853</a> Not issued yet.</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-852" href="#section-852">852</a> Malis </span> Apr 83 The ARPANET Short Blocking Feature
This RFC specifies the ARPANET Short Blocking Feature, which will
allow ARPANET hosts to optionally shorten the IMP's host blocking
timer. This Feature is a replacement of the ARPANET non-blocking
host interface, which was never implemented, and will be available to
hosts using either the 1822 or 1822L Host Access Protocol. This RFC
is also being presented as a solicitation of comments on the Short
Blocking Feature, especially from host network software implementers
and maintainers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-851" href="#section-851">851</a> Malis </span> Apr 83 The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a
successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol. 1822L allows
ARPANET hosts to use logical names as well as 1822's physical port
locations to address each other. This RFC is also being presented as
a solicitation of comments on 1822L, especially from host network
software implementers and maintainers. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc802">RFC 802</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-850" href="#section-850">850</a> Horton </span> Jun 83 Standard for Interchange of USENET
Messages
This memo is distributed as an RFC only to make this information
easily accessible to researchers in the ARPA community. It does not
specify an Internet standard. This RFC defines the standard format
for interchange of Network News articles among USENET sites. It
describes the format for articles themselves, and gives partial
standards for transmission of news. The news transmission is not
entirely standardized in order to give a good deal of flexibility to
the individual hosts to choose transmission hardware and software,
whether to batch news and so on.
Postel & Westine [page 9]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-849" href="#section-849">849</a> Crispin </span> May 83 Suggestions for Improved Host Table
Distribution
This RFC actually is a request for comments. The issue dealt with is
that of a naming registry update procedure, both as exists currently
and what could exist in the future. None of the proposed solutions
are intended as standards at this time; rather it is hoped that a
general consensus will emerge as the appropriate solution, leaving
eventually to the adoption of standards.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-848" href="#section-848">848</a> Smallberg </span> Mar 83 Who provides the "Little" TCP Services?
This RFC lists those hosts which provide any of these "little" TCP
services: The list of hosts were taken from the NIC hostname table
of 24-Feb-83. The tests were run on February 23 and 24, and March 3
and 5 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-847" href="#section-847">847</a> Westine </span> Feb 83 Summary of Smallberg Surveys
This is a summary of the surveys of Telnet, FTP and Mail (SMTP)
servers conducted by David Smallberg in December 1982, January and
February 1983 as reported in <a href="./rfc832">RFC 832</a>-843, 845-846. This memo
extracts the number of hosts that accepted the connection to their
server for each of Telnet, FTP, and SMTP, and compares it to the
total host in the Internet (not counting TACs or ECHOS).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-846" href="#section-846">846</a> Smallberg </span> Feb 83 Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 22 February
1983
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 18-Feb-83. The tests were run on 22-Feb-83
from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-845" href="#section-845">845</a> Smallberg </span> Feb 83 Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 15 February
1983
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83. The tests were run on 15-Feb-83
from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
Postel & Westine [page 10]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-844" href="#section-844">844</a> Clements </span> Feb 83 Who Talks ICMP, too? Survey of 18
February 1983
This survey determines how many hosts are able to respond to TELENET
connections from a user at a class C site. This requires, in
addition to IP and TCP, participation in gateway routing via ICMP and
handling of Class C addresses. The list of hosts was taken from <a href="./rfc843">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc843">843</a>, extracting only those hosts which are listed there as accepting
TELNET connection. The tests were run on 18-Feb-83.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-843" href="#section-843">843</a> Smallberg </span> Feb 83 Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 8 February
1983
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 3-Feb-83. The tests were run on 8-Feb-83
and on 9-Feb-83 from ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-842" href="#section-842">842</a> Smallberg </span> Feb 83 Who Talks TCP? -- Survey of 1 February
1983
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 28-Jan-83. The tests were run on 1-Feb-83
and on 2-Feb-83 ISI-VAXA.ARPA.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-841" href="#section-841">841</a> FIPS PUB 98 </span>Jan 83 Specification for Message Format for
Computer Based Message Systems
This RFC is FIPS 98. The purpose of distributing this document as an
RFC is to make it easily accessible to the ARPA research community.
This RFC does not specify a standard for the ARPA Internet.
Obsoletes <a href="./rfc806">RFC 806</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-840" href="#section-840">840</a> Postel </span> Apr 83 Official Protocols
This RFC has been revised, see <a href="./rfc880">RFC 880</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-839" href="#section-839">839</a> Smallberg </span> Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on
25-Jan-83.
Postel & Westine [page 11]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-838" href="#section-838">838</a> Smallberg </span> Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on
18-Jan-83.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-837" href="#section-837">837</a> Smallberg </span> Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on
11-Jan-83.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-836" href="#section-836">836</a> Smallberg </span> Jan 83 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 20-Dec-82. The tests were run on 4-Jan-83
through 5-Jan-83.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-835" href="#section-835">835</a> Smallberg </span> Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82. The tests were run on 28-Dec-82
through 5-Jan-83.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-834" href="#section-834">834</a> Smallberg </span> Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82. The tests were run on 22-Dec-82.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-833" href="#section-833">833</a> Smallberg </span> Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82. The tests were run on 14-Dec-82.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-832" href="#section-832">832</a> Smallberg </span> Dec 82 Who Talks TCP?
This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status
of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from
the NIC hostname table of 2-Dec-82. The tests were run on 7-Dec-82.
Postel & Westine [page 12]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-831" href="#section-831">831</a> Braden </span> Dec 82 Backup Access to the European Side of
SATNET
The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on a particular
Internet problem: a backup path for software maintenance of the
European sector of the Internet, for use when SATNET is partitioned.
We propose a mechanism, based upon the Source Routing option of IP,
to reach European Internet sites via the VAN Gateway and UCL. This
proposal is not intended as a standard at this time.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-830" href="#section-830">830</a> Zaw-Sing Su </span>Oct 82 A Distributed System for Internet Name
Service
This RFC proposes a distributed name service for DARPA Internet. Its
purpose is to focus discussion on the subject. It is hoped that a
general consensus will emerge leading eventually to the adoption of
standards.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-829" href="#section-829">829</a> Cerf </span> Oct 82 Packet Satellite Technology Reference
Sources
This RFC describes briefly the packet satellite technology developed
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and several other
participating organizations in the U.K. and Norway and provides a
bibliography of relevant papers for researchers interested in
experimental and operational experience with this dynamic
satellite-sharing technique.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-828" href="#section-828">828</a> Owen </span> Aug 82 Data Communications: IFIP's
International "Network" of Experts
This RFC is distributed to inform the ARPA Internet community of the
activities of the IFIP technical committee on Data Communications,
and to encourage participation in those activities.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-827" href="#section-827">827</a> Rosen </span> Oct 82 Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)
This RFC is proposed to establish a standard for Gateway to Gateway
procedures that allow the Gateways to be mutually suspicious. This
document is a DRAFT for that standard. Your comments are strongly
encouraged.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-826" href="#section-826">826</a> Plummer </span> Nov 82 An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol
The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting Protocol
Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network Addresses (e.g.,
Ethernet addresses). This is an issue of general concern in the ARPA
Internet Community at this time. The method proposed here is
presented for your consideration and comment. This is not the
specification of an Internet Standard.
Postel & Westine [page 13]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-825" href="#section-825">825</a> Postel </span> Nov 82 Request for Comments on Requests for
Comments
This RFC is intended to clarify the status of RFCs and to provide
some guidance for the authors of RFCs in the future. It is in a
sense a specification for RFCs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-824" href="#section-824">824</a> MacGregor </span> Aug 82 The Cronus Virtual Local Network
The purpose of this note is to describe the CRONUS Virtual Local
Network, especially the addressing related features. These features
include a method for mapping between Internet Addresses and Local
Network addresses. This is a topic of current concern in the ARPA
Internet community. This note is intended to stimulate discussion.
This is not a specification of an Internet Standard.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-823" href="#section-823">823</a> Hinden </span> Sep 82 The DARPA Internet Gateway
This RFC is a status report on the Internet Gateway developed by BBN.
It describes the Internet Gateway as of September 1982. This memo
presents detailed descriptions of message formats and gateway
procedures, however, this is not an implementation specification, and
such details are subject to change.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-822" href="#section-822">822</a> Crocker </span> Aug 82 Standard for the Format of ARPA
Internet Text Messages
This document revises the specifications in <a href="./rfc733">RFC 733</a>, in order to
serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA Internet. Some
of <a href="./rfc733">RFC 733</a>'s features failed to gain adequate acceptance. In order
to simplify the standard and the software that follows it, these
features have been removed. A different addressing scheme is used,
to handle the case of internetwork mail; and the concept of
re-transmission has been introduced. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc733">RFC 733</a>, NIC 41952.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-821" href="#section-821">821</a> Postel </span> Aug 82 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
The objective of Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is to transfer
mail reliably and efficiently. SMTP is independent of the particular
transmission subsystem and requires only a reliable ordered data
stream channel. Obsoletes <a href="./rfc788">RFC 788</a>, 780, and 772.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-820" href="#section-820">820</a> Postel </span> Jan 82 Assigned Numbers
This RFC is an old version, see <a href="./rfc870">RFC 870</a>.
Postel & Westine [page 14]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-819" href="#section-819">819</a> Zaw-Sing Su </span>Aug 82 The Domain Naming Convention for
Internet User Applications
This RFC is an attempt to clarify the generalization of the Domain
Naming Convention, the Internet Naming Convention, and to explore the
implications of its adoption for Internet name service and user
applications.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-818" href="#section-818">818</a> Postel </span> Nov 82 The Remote User Telnet Service
This RFC is the specification of an application protocol. Any host
that implements this application level service must follow this
protocol.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-817" href="#section-817">817</a> Clark </span> Jul 82 Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation
This RFC will discuss some of the commonly encountered reasons why
protocol implementations seem to run slowly.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-816" href="#section-816">816</a> Clark </span> Jul 82 Fault Isolation and Recovery
This RFC describes the portion of fault isolation and recovery which
is the responsibility of the host.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-815" href="#section-815">815</a> Clark </span> Jul 82 IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
This RFC describes an alternate approach of dealing with reassembly
which reduces the bookkeeping problem to a minimum, and requires only
one buffer for storage equal in size to the final datagram being
reassembled, which can reassemble a datagram from any number of
fragments arriving in any order with any possible pattern of overlap
and duplication, and which is appropriate for almost any sort of
operating system.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-814" href="#section-814">814</a> Clark </span> Jul 82 Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
This RFC gives suggestions and guidance for the design of the tables
and algorithms necessary to keep track of these various sorts of
identifiers inside a host implementation of TCP/IP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-813" href="#section-813">813</a> Clark </span> Jul 82 Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
TCP
This RFC describes implementation strategies to deal with two
mechanisms in TCP, the window and the acknowledgement. It also
presents a particular set of algorithms which have received testing
in the field, and which appear to work properly with each other.
With more experience, these algorithms may become part of the formal
specification, until such time their use is recommended.
Postel & Westine [page 15]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-812" href="#section-812">812</a> Harrenstien </span> Mar 82 NICNAME/WHOIS
This RFC gives a description of what the NICNAME/WHOIS Server is and
how to access it. This server together with the corresponding
Identification Data Base provides online directory look-up equivalent
to the ARPANET Directory.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-811" href="#section-811">811</a> Harrenstien </span> Mar 82 Hostnames Server
This RFC gives a description of what the Hostnames Server is and how
to access it. The function of this particular server is to deliver
machine-readable name/address information describing networks,
gateways, hosts, and eventually domains, within the internet
environment.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-810" href="#section-810">810</a> Feinler </span> Mar 82 DoD Internet Host Table Specification
This RFC specifies a new host table format applicable to both ARPANET
and Internet needs. In addition to host name to host address
translation and selected protocol information, we have also included
network and gateway name to address correspondence, and host
operating system information. This RFC obsoletes the host table
described in <a href="./rfc608">RFC 608</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-809" href="#section-809">809</a> Chang </span> Feb 82 UCL Facsimile System
This RFC describes the features of the computerised facsimile system
developed in the Department of Computer Science at UCL. First its
functions are considered and the related experimental work are
reported. Then the disciplines for system design are discussed.
Finally, the implementation of the system are described, while
detailed description are given as appendices.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-808" href="#section-808">808</a> Postel </span> Mar 82 Summary of Computer Mail Services
Meeting Held at BBN on 10 January 1979
This RFC is a very belated attempt to document a meeting that was
held three years earlier to discuss the state of computer mail in the
ARPA community and to reach some conclusions to guide the further
development of computer mail systems such that a coherent total mail
service would continue to be provided.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-807" href="#section-807">807</a> Postel </span> Feb 82 Multimedia Mail Meeting Notes
This RFC consists of notes from a meeting held at USC Information
Sciences Institute on the 12th of January to discuss common interests
in multimedia computer mail issues and to agree on some specific
initial experiments.
Postel & Westine [page 16]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-806" href="#section-806">806</a> NBS </span> Sep 81 Specification for Message Format for
Computer Based Message Systems
This RFC deals with Computer Based Message systems which provides a
basis for interaction between different CBMS by defining the format
of messages passed between them. This RFC is replaced by <a href="./rfc841">RFC 841</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-805" href="#section-805">805</a> Postel </span> Feb 82 Computer Mail Meeting Notes
This RFC consists of notes from a meeting that was held at USC
Information Sciences Institute on 11 January 1982, to discuss
addressing issues in computer mail. The major conclusion reached at
the meeting is to extend the "username@hostname" mailbox format to
"username@host.domain", where the domain itself can be further
strutured.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-804" href="#section-804">804</a> CCITT </span> Jan 82 CCITT Draft Recommendation T.4
This is the CCITT standard for group 3 facsimile encoding. This is
useful for data compression of bit map data.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-803" href="#section-803">803</a> Agarwal </span> Nov 81 Dacom 450/500 Facsimile Data
Transcoding
The first part of this RFC describes in detail the Dacom 450 data
compression algorithms and is an update and correction to an earlier
memorandum. The second part of this RFC describes briefly the Dacom
500 data compression algorithm as used by the INTELPOST
electronic-mail network under development by the US Postal Service
and several foreign administrators.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-802" href="#section-802">802</a> Malis </span> Nov 81 The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
This document proposed two major changes to the current ARPANET host
access protocol. The first change will allow hosts to use logical
addressing (i.e., host addresses that are independent of their
physical location on the ARPANET) to communicate with each other, and
the second will allow a host to shorten the amount of time that it
may be blocked by its IMP after it presents a message to the network
(currently, the IMP can block further input from a host for up to 15
seconds). See RFCs 852 and 851.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-801" href="#section-801">801</a> Postel </span> Nov 81 NCP/TCP Transition Plan
This RFC discusses the conversion of hosts from NCP to TCP. And
making available the principle services: Telnet, File Transfer, and
Mail. These protocols allow all hosts in the ARPA community to share
a common interprocess communication environment.
Postel & Westine [page 17]</pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<a href="./rfc899">RFC 899</a> May 1984
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-800" href="#section-800">800</a> Postel </span> Nov 82 Requests for Comments Summary
This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from <a href="./rfc700">RFC 700</a>
through <a href="./rfc799">RFC 799</a>. This is a status report on these RFCs.
Postel & Westine [page 18]
</pre>
|
