RFCs0001-0500

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identifies topics under discussion and the relevant NWG/RFCs, and indicates whether the notes are current, obsolete, or superseded.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 wh