DOCSLIB.ORG

1012 J. Postel ISI June 1987 BIBLIOGRAPHY of REQUEST

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1012 J. Postel ISI June 1987 BIBLIOGRAPHY of REQUEST Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 1012 J. Postel ISI June 1987 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 1 THROUGH 999 STATUS OF THIS MEMO This RFC is a reference guide for the Internet community which provides a bibliographic summary of the Request for Comments numbers 1 through 999 issued between the years 1969-1987. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DOCUMENTS 1 - Crocker, Steve, "Host Software", RFC 1 (NIC 4687), UCLA/NMC, 7 April 1969. 2 - Duvall, Bill, "Links", RFC 2 (NIC4688), SRI, 9 April 1969. 3 - Crocker, Steve, "Documentation Conventions", RFC 3 (NIC 4689), UCLA/NMC, 9 April 1969. 4 - Shapiro, Elmer B., "Network Timetable", RFC 4 (NIC 4690), SRI, 24 March 1969. 5 - Rulifson, Jeff, "DEL", RFC 5 (NIC 4691), SRI, 2 June 1969. 6 - Crocker, Steve, "Conversation with Bob Kahn", RFC 6 (NIC 4692), UCLA/NMC, 10 April 1969. 7 - Deloche, Gerard, "HOST/IMP Interface", RFC 7 (NIC 4693), UCLA, 5 May 1969. 8 - Deloche, Gerard, "ARPA Network Functional Specifications", RFC 8 (NIC 4694), UCLA, 5 May 1969. 9 - Deloche, Gerard, "HOST Software", RFC 9 (NIC 4695), UCLA, 1 May 1969. 10 - Crocker, Steve, "Documentation Conventions", RFC 10 (NIC 4696), UCLA/NMC, 9 April 1969. 11 - Deloche, Gerard, "Implementation of the Host-Host Software Procedures in GORDO", RFC 11 (NIC 4718), UCLA/NMC, 1 August 1969. 12 - Wingfield, Mike, "IMP-HOST Interface Flow Diagram", RFC 12 (NIC 4697), UCLA/NMC, 26 August 1969. Reynolds & Postel [Page 1] RFC 1012 - Bibliography of RFCs 1 - 999 June 1987 13 - Cerf, Vint, "Referring to NWG/RFC 11", RFC 13 (NIC 4698), UCLA/NMC, 20 August 1969. 14 - Never Issued. 15 - Carr, C. Stephen, "Network Subsystem for Time-Sharing Hosts", RFC 15 (NIC 4754), Utah, 25 September 1969. 16 - Crocker, Steve, "M.I.T. (address)", RFC 16 (NIC 4719), UCLA/NMC, 27 August 1969. 17 - Kreznar, John E., "Some Questions Re: HOST-IMP Protocol", RFC 17 (NIC 4699), SDC, 27 August 1969. 17a - Kahn, Robert, "The Following Comments are in Response to John Kreznar's Questions Which Were Raised in RFC 17", RFC 17a, BBN, August 1969. 18 - Cerf, Vint, "Use of Links 1 and 2", RFC 18 (NIC 4720), UCLA/NMC, September 1969. 19 - Kreznar, John E., "Two Protocol Suggestions to Reduce Congestion at Swap-Bound Nodes", RFC 19 (NIC 4721), SDC, 7 October 1969. 20 - Cerf, Vint, "ASCII Format for Network Interchange", RFC 20 (NIC 4722), UCLA/NMC, 16 October 1969. 21 - Cerf, Vint, "Report of Network Meeting", RFC 21 (NIC 4723), UCLA/NMC, 17 October 1969. 22 - Cerf, Vint, "Host-Host Control Message Formats", RFC 22 (NIC 4724), UCLA/NMC, 17 October 1969. 23 - Gregg, George, "Transmission of Multiple Control Messages", RFC 23 (NIC 4725), UCSB, 16 October 1969. 24 - Crocker, Steve, "Documentation Conventions", RFC 24 (NIC 4726), UCLA/NMC, 21 November 1969. 25 - Crocker, Steve, "No High Link Numbers", RFC 25 (NIC 4727), UCLA/NMC, 30 October 1969. 26 - Never Issued. 27 - Crocker, Steve, "Documentation Conventions", RFC 27 (NIC 4729), UCLA/NMC, 9 December 1969. Reynolds & Postel [Page 2] RFC 1012 - Bibliography of RFCs 1 - 999 June 1987 28 - English, Bill, "Time Standards", RFC 28 (NIC 4730), SRI-ARC, 13 January 1970. 29 - Kahn, Robert, "Note in Response to Bill English's Request for Comments", RFC 29 (NIC 4731), BBN, 19 January 1970. 30 - Crocker, Steve, "Documentation Conventions", RFC 30 (NIC 4732), UCLA/NMC, 4 February 1970. 31 - Bobrow, Daniel, and William R. Sutherland, "Binary Message Forms in Computer Networks", RFC 31 (NIC 4733), BBN and LINC, February 1968. 32 - Cole, Jerry, "Some Thoughts on SRI's Proposed Real Time Clock (re: RFCs 28,29)", RFC 32, MIT-Project MAC, 5 February 1970. 33 - Crocker, Steve, "New Host-Host Protocol", RFC 33 (NIC 4735), UCLA/NMC, 12 February 1970. 34 - English, Bill, "Some Brief Preliminary Notes on the ARC Clock", RFC 34 (NIC 4736), SRI-ARC, 26 February 1970. 35 - Crocker, Steve, "Network Meeting", RFC 35 (NIC 4737), UCLA/NMC, 3 March 1970. 36 - Crocker, Steve, "Protocol Notes", RFC 36 (NIC 4738), UCLA/NMC, 16 March 1970. 37 - Crocker, Steve, "Network Meeting Epilogue, etc.", RFC 37 (NIC 4739), UCLA/NMC, 20 March 1970. 38 - Wolfe, Stephen M., "Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC 36", RFC 38 (NIC 4740), UCLA/CCN, 20 March 1970. 39 - Harslem, Eric and John Heafner, "Comments on Protocol Re: NWG/RFC 36", RFC 39 (NIC 4741), Rand, 25 March 1970. 40 - Harslem, Eric and John Heafner, "More Coments on the Forthcoming Protocol", RFC 40 (NIC 4742), Rand, 27 March 1970. 41 - Melvin, John, "IMP-IMP Teletype Communication", RFC 41 (NIC 4743), SRI-ARC, 30 March 1970. 42 - Ancona, Enrico I., "Message Data Types", RFC 42 (NIC 4744), LINC, 31 March 1970. 42a - Ancona, Enrico I., "User View of the TSP System (Working Paper)", RFC 42a, LINC, April 1970. Reynolds & Postel [Page 3] RFC 1012 - Bibliography of RFCs 1 - 999 June 1987 43 - Nemeth, Alan G., "Proposed Meeting", RFC 43 (NIC 4745), LINC, 8 April 1970. 44 - Shoshani, Arie, Robert Long, and Abe Lansberg, "Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36", RFC 44 (NIC 4746), SDC, 10 April 1970. 45 - Postel, Jon and Steve Crocker, "New Protocol is Coming", RFC 45 (NIC 4747), UCLA/NMC, 14 April 1970. 46 - Meyer, Edwin W., Jr., "ARPA Network Protocol Notes", RFC 46 (NIC 4748), MIT-Project MAC, 17 April 1970. 47 - Postel, Jon, and Steve Crocker, "BBN's Comments on NWG/RFC 33", RFC 47 (NIC 4749), UCLA/NMC, 20 April 1970. 48 - Postel, Jon, and Steve Crocker, "Possible Protocol Plateau", RFC 48 (NIC 4750), UCLA/NMC, 21 April 1970. 49 - Meyer, Edwin W., Jr., "Conversations with Steve Crocker", RFC 49 (NIC 4728), MIT-Project MAC, 25 April 1970. 50 - Harslem, Eric, and John Heafner, "Comments on the Meyer Proposal", RFC 50 (NIC 4751), Rand, 30 April 1970. 51 - Elie, M., "Proposal for a Network Interchange Language", RFC 51 (NIC 4752), UCLA/NMC, 4 May 1970. 52 - Crocker, Steve, and Jon Postel, "Updated Distribution List", RFC 52 (NIC 4753), UCLA/NMC, 1 July 1970. 53 - Crocker, Steve, "An Official Protocol Mechanism", RFC 53 (NIC 4755), UCLA/NMC, 9 June 1970. 54 - Crocker, Steve, Jon Postel, John Newkirk, and Mike Kraley, "An Official Protocol Proffering", RFC 54 (NIC 4756), UCLA/NMC and Harvard, 18 June 1970. 55 - Newkirk, John, Mike Kraley, Jon Postel, and Steve Crocker, "A Prototypical Implementation of the NCP", RFC 55 (NIC 4757), Harvard and UCLA/NMC, 19 June 1970. 56 - Belove, Ed, Dave Black, Bob Flegal, and Lamar G. Farquar, "Third Level Protocol", RFC 56 (NIC 4758), Harvard and Utah, 19 June 1970. 57 - Kraley, Mike, and John Newkirk, "Thoughts and Reflections on NWG/RFC 54", RFC 57 (NIC 4759), Harvard, 19 June 1970. Reynolds & Postel [Page 4] RFC 1012 - Bibliography of RFCs 1 - 999 June 1987 58 - Skinner, Thomas P., "Logical Message Synchronization", RFC 58 (NIC 4760), MIT-Project MAC, 26 June 1970. 59 - Meyer, Edwin W., Jr., "Flow Control - Fixed Versus Demand Allocation", RFC 59 (NIC 4761), MIT-Project MAC, 27 June 1970. 60 - Kalin, Richard, "A Simplified NCP Protocol", RFC 60 (NIC 4762), LINC, 13 July 1970. 61 - Walden, Dave, "A Note on Interprocess Communications in a Resource Sharing Computer Network", RFC 61 (NIC 4961), Superseded by RFC 62, BBN, 17 July 1970. 62 - Walden, Dave, "A System for Interprocess Communication in a Resource Sharing Computer Network", RFC 62 (NIC 4962), Supersedes RFC 61, BBN, 3 August 1970. 63 - Cerf, Vint, "Belated Network Meeting Report", RFC 63 (NIC 4963), UCLA/NMC, 31 July 1970. 64 - Elie, M., "Getting Rid of Marking", RFC 64 (NIC 4964), UCLA/NMC, Undated Document. 65 - Walden, Dave, "Comments on Host-Host Protocol Document Number 1 (by Steve Crocker, 3 August 1970)", RFC 65 (NIC 4965), BBN, 29 August 1970. 66 - Crocker, Steve, "3rd Level Ideas and Other Noise", RFC 66 (NIC 5409), UCLA/NMC, 26 August 1970. 67 - Crowther, William, "Proposed Change to Host/IMP Spec to Eliminate Marking", RFC 67 (NIC 5410), BBN, Undated Document. 68 - Elie, M., "Comments on Memory Allocation Control Commands (CEASE, ALL, GVB, RET) and RFNM", RFC 68 (NIC 5411), UCLA/NMC, 31 August 1970. 69 - Bhushan, Abhay, "Distribution List Change for M.I.T.", RFC 69 (NIC 5412), MIT-Project MAC, 22 September 1970. 70 - Crocker, Steve, "A Note on Padding", RFC 70 (NIC 5413), UCLA/NMC, 15 October 1970. 71 - Schipper, Tjaart, "Reallocation in Case of Input Error", RFC 71 (NIC 5414), UCLA/NMC, 25 September 1970. 72 - Bressler, Bob, "Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network Protocol", RFC 71 (NIC 5415), MIT-Project MAC, 28 September 1970. Reynolds & Postel [Page 5] RFC 1012 - Bibliography of RFCs 1 - 999 June 1987 73 - Crocker, Steve, "Response to NWG/RFC 67", RFC 73 (NIC 5416), UCLA/NMC, 25 September 1970. 74 - White, Jim, "Specifications for Network Use of the UCSB On-Line Systems", RFC 74 (NIC 5417), UCSB, 16 October 1970. 75 - Crocker, Steve, "Network Meeting", RFC 75 (NIC 5418), UCLA/NMC, 14 October 1970. 76 - Bouknight, Jack, James Madden, and Gary Grossman, "Connection-By-Name: User Oriented Protocol", RFC 76 (NIC 5180), Illinois, 28 October 1970. 77 - Postel, Jon, "Network Meeting Report", RFC 77 (NIC 5604), UCLA/NMC, 20 November 1970. 78 - Harslem, Eric, John Heafner, and Jim White, "NCP Status Report: UCSB/RAND", RFC 78 (NIC 5199), Rand, 24 November 1970. 79 - Meyer, Edwin W., "Logger Protocol Error", RFC 79 (NIC 5601), MIT-Project MAC, 16 November 1970. 80 - Harslem, Eric and John Heafner, "Protocols and Data Formats", RFC 80 (NIC 5608), Rand 1 December 1970. 81 - Bouknight, Jack, "Request for Reference Information", RFC 81 (NIC 5609), Illinois, 3 December 1970. 82 - Meyer, Edwin W., Jr., "Network Meeting Notes", RFC 82 (NIC 5619), MIT-Project MAC, 9 December 1970.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2606 A. Panitz BCP: 32 June 1999 Category: Best Current Practice
    Network Working Group D. Eastlake Request for Comments: 2606 A. Panitz BCP: 32 June 1999 Category: Best Current Practice Reserved Top Level DNS Names Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented. Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................1 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples..............2 3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names..............2 4. IANA Considerations.....................................3 5. Security Considerations.................................3 References.................................................3 Authors' Addresses.........................................4 Full Copyright Statement...................................5 1. Introduction The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC 1034, 1035, 1591] and numerous additional Requests for Comment. It defines a tree of names starting with root, ".", immediately below which are top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us". Below top level domain names there are normally additional levels of names. Eastlake & Panitz Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 2606 Reserved Top Level DNS Names June 1999 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 820 J. Vernon January 1983 Obsoletes Rfcs
    Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 820 J. Vernon January 1983 Obsoletes RFCs: 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, 604, 503, 433, 349 Obsoletes IENs: 127, 117, 93 ASSIGNED NUMBERS This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current information can be obtained from Jon Postel. The assignment of numbers is also handled by Jon, subject to the agreement between DARPA/IPTO and DDN/PMO about number allocation, documented in Appendix A of this RFC. If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, or network number please contact Jon to receive a number assignment. Jon Postel USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90291 phone: (213) 822-1511 ARPANET mail: POSTEL@ISIF The ARPANET community is making the transition form the ARPANET to the ARPA Internet. This has been characterized as the NCP/TCP transition [63], although many other the protocols are involved, too. The working documents for the new Internet environment have been collected by the Network Information Center (NIC) in a book entitled the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" [62]. Most of the protocols mentioned here are documented in the RFC series of notes. The more prominent and more generally used are documented in the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" or in the old "Protocol Handbook" [17] prepared by the NIC. Some of the items listed are undocumented.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 923 J
    Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 923 J. Postel ISI Obsoletes RFCs: 900, 870, 820, October 1984 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755, 750, 739, 604, 503, 433, 349 Obsoletes IENs: 127, 117, 93 ASSIGNED NUMBERS Status of this Memo This memo is an official status report on the numbers used in protocols in the ARPA-Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Introduction This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current information can be obtained from Joyce Reynolds. The assignment of numbers is also handled by Joyce. If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, network number, etc., please contact Joyce to receive a number assignment. Joyce Reynolds USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Phone: (213) 822-1511 ARPA mail: [email protected] Most of the protocols mentioned here are documented in the RFC series of notes. The more prominent and more generally used are documented in the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" [33] or in the old "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" [34] prepared by the NIC. Some of the items listed are undocumented. Further information on protocols can be found in the memo "Official ARPA-Internet Protocols" [89]. In all cases the name and mailbox of the responsible individual is indicated. In the lists that follow, a bracketed entry, e.g., [nn,iii], at the right hand margin of the page indicates a reference for the listed protocol, where the number ("nn") cites the document and the letters ("iii") cites the person.
    [Show full text]
  • 1117 M. Stahl Obsoletes Rfcs: 1062, 1020, 997, 990, 960, 943, M
    Network Working Group S. Romano Request for Comments: 1117 M. Stahl Obsoletes RFCs: 1062, 1020, 997, 990, 960, 943, M. Recker 923, 900, 870, 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, SRI-NIC 758, 755, 750, 739, 604, 503, 433, 349 August 1989 Obsoletes IENs: 127, 117, 93 INTERNET NUMBERS Status of this Memo This memo is an official status report on the network numbers and the autonomous system numbers used in the Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Introduction This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned network numbers and gateway autonomous systems. This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current information can be obtained from Hostmaster at the DDN Network Information Center (NIC). Hostmaster DDN Network Information Center SRI International 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone: 1-800-235-3155 Network mail: [email protected] Most of the protocols used in the Internet are documented in the RFC series of notes. Some of the items listed are undocumented. Further information on protocols can be found in the memo "Official Internet Protocols" [40]. The more prominent and more generally used are documented in the "DDN Protocol Handbook" [17] prepared by the NIC. Other collections of older or obsolete protocols are contained in the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" [18], or in the "ARPANET Protocol Transition Handbook" [19]. For further information on ordering the complete 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook, contact the Hostmaster. Also, the Internet Activities Board (IAB) publishes the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" [52], which describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet and Isi: Four Decades of Innovation
    THE INTERNET AND ISI: FOUR DECADES OF INNOVATION ROD BECKSTROM President and Chief Executive Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 40th Anniversary of USC Information Sciences Institute 26 April 2012 As prepared for delivery It’s an honor to be here today to mark the 40th anniversary of the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute. Thank you to Herb Schorr for inviting me to speak with you today and participate in the day’s events. When he steps down he will leave some very large shoes to fill. When I received Herb’s invitation, I seized upon it as an opportunity to come before you to express the sincere gratitude that my colleagues and I feel for the work and support of ISI. When I think of ICANN and its development, and all we have accomplished, I never forget that we stand upon the shoulders of giants, many of whom contributed to my remarks today. In fact, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Bob Kahn, who has been a mentor to me. I am honored that he took the time to walk through a number of details in the history I have been asked to relate. The organizers asked me to speak about the history of ISI and ICANN. They also invited me to talk a bit about the future of the Internet. In my role as President and CEO of ICANN, I have many speaking engagements that are forward looking. They are opportunities to talk about ICANN’s work and how it will usher in the next phase in the history of the global, unified Internet that many of you have helped to create.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group N. Freed Request for Comments: 2049 Innosoft Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590 N
    Network Working Group N. Freed Request for Comments: 2049 Innosoft Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590 N. Borenstein Category: Standards Track First Virtual November 1996 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for (1) textual message bodies in character sets other than US-ASCII, (2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies, (3) multi-part message bodies, and (4) textual header information in character sets other than US-ASCII. These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD 11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822. The initial document in this set, RFC 2045, specifies the various headers used to describe the structure of MIME messages. The second document defines the general structure of the MIME media typing system and defines an initial set of media types.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    2015 Annual Report ANNUAL 2015 REPORT CONTENTS i Letter from the President 4 ii NYSERNet Names New President 6 iii NYSERNet Members Institutions 8 iv Membership Update 9 v Data Center 10 vi VMWare Quilt Project 11 vii Working Groups 12 viii Education Services 13 ix iGlass 14 x Network 16 xi Internet Services 17 xii Board Members 18 xiii Our Staff 19 xiv Human Face of Research 20 LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to present to you NYSERNet’s 2015 Annual Report. Through more than three decades, NYSERNet’s members have addressed the education and research community’s networking and other technology needs together, with trust in each other guiding us through every transition. This spring inaugurates more change, as City. The terrible attack of Sept. 11, 2001, we welcome a new president and I will step complicated achievement of that goal, made down from that position to focus on the it more essential, and taught a sobering research community’s work and needs. lesson concerning the importance of communication and the need to harden the By itself, working with NYSERNet’s infrastructure that supports it. We invested extraordinary Board and staff to support in a wounded New York City, deploying fiber and building what today has become a global exchange point at “ These two ventures formed pieces 32 Avenue of the Americas. In the process, we forged partnerships in a puzzle that, when assembled, that have proved deep and durable. benefited all of New York and beyond.” Despite inherent risks, and a perception that New York City the collective missions of our members institutions might principally benefit, for the past 18 years has been a privilege NYSERNet’s Board unanimously supported beyond my imagining.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consensus Protocol
    8/5/2020 The Consensus Protocol FEATURE AUGUST 2020 The Consensus Protocol How a radical process, invented to build the ARPANET, spawned history's greatest tool for collaborative work BY STEVE CROCKER UCLA’s Boelter Hall housed one of the four original ARPANET nodes. ach March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not Equite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force meets every four months at an open conference that bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around the world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global network that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously improving. Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more remarkable considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is both of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have embraced a principle and a https://read.nxtbook.com/ieee/spectrum/spectrum_na_august_2020/the_consensus_protocol.html?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpWh h b i i h hi f h l haVpXSmxOMll6TURZeSIsInQiOiIyc280i i l i h … 1/12 8/5/2020 The Consensus Protocol process that have been quite rare in the history of technology.
    [Show full text]
  • I: the Conception
    Excerpt from: Mayo, Keenan and Newcomb, Peter. “How the Web Was Won,” Vanity Fair, July 2008. I: The Conception Paul Baran, an electrical engineer, conceived one of the Internet’s building blocks—packet switching— while working at the Rand Corporation around 1960. Packet switching breaks data into chunks, or “packets,” and lets each one take its own path to a destination, where they are re-assembled (rather than sending everything along the same path, as a traditional telephone circuit does). A similar idea was proposed independently in Britain by Donald Davies. Later in his career, Baran would pioneer the airport metal detector. Paul Baran: It was necessary to have a strategic system that could withstand a first attack and then be able to return the favor in kind. The problem was that we didn’t have a survivable communications system, and so Soviet missiles aimed at U.S. missiles would take out the entire telephone- communication system. At that time the Strategic Air Command had just two forms of communication. One was the U.S. telephone system, or an overlay of that, and the other was high-frequency or shortwave radio. So that left us with the interesting situation of saying, Well, why do the communications fail when the bombs were aimed, not at the cities, but just at the strategic forces? And the answer was that the collateral damage was sufficient to knock out a telephone system that was highly centralized. Well, then, let’s not make it centralized. Let’s spread it out so that we can have other paths to get around the damage.
    [Show full text]
  • How Constructing the DNS Shaped Internet Governance
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Malcic, Steven Article The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance Internet Policy Review Provided in Cooperation with: Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin Suggested Citation: Malcic, Steven (2016) : The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance, Internet Policy Review, ISSN 2197-6775, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp. 1-13, http://dx.doi.org/10.14763/2016.3.434 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/214028 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 959 J. Reynolds ISI Obsoletes RFC: 765 (IEN 149) October 1985
    Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 959 J. Reynolds ISI Obsoletes RFC: 765 (IEN 149) October 1985 FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL (FTP) Status of this Memo This memo is the official specification of the File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Distribution of this memo is unlimited. The following new optional commands are included in this edition of the specification: CDUP (Change to Parent Directory), SMNT (Structure Mount), STOU (Store Unique), RMD (Remove Directory), MKD (Make Directory), PWD (Print Directory), and SYST (System). Note that this specification is compatible with the previous edition. 1. INTRODUCTION The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files (computer programs and/or data), 2) to encourage indirect or implicit (via programs) use of remote computers, 3) to shield a user from variations in file storage systems among hosts, and 4) to transfer data reliably and efficiently. FTP, though usable directly by a user at a terminal, is designed mainly for use by programs. The attempt in this specification is to satisfy the diverse needs of users of maxi-hosts, mini-hosts, personal workstations, and TACs, with a simple, and easily implemented protocol design. This paper assumes knowledge of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [2] and the Telnet Protocol [3]. These documents are contained in the ARPA-Internet protocol handbook [1]. 2. OVERVIEW In this section, the history, the terminology, and the FTP model are discussed. The terms defined in this section are only those that have special significance in FTP. Some of the terminology is very specific to the FTP model; some readers may wish to turn to the section on the FTP model while reviewing the terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • Features of the Internet History the Norwegian Contribution to the Development PAAL SPILLING and YNGVAR LUNDH
    Features of the Internet history The Norwegian contribution to the development PAAL SPILLING AND YNGVAR LUNDH This article provides a short historical and personal view on the development of packet-switching, computer communications and Internet technology, from its inception around 1969 until the full- fledged Internet became operational in 1983. In the early 1990s, the internet backbone at that time, the National Science Foundation network – NSFNET, was opened up for commercial purposes. At that time there were already several operators providing commercial services outside the internet. This presentation is based on the authors’ participation during parts of the development and on literature Paal Spilling is studies. This provides a setting in which the Norwegian participation and contribution may be better professor at the understood. Department of informatics, Univ. of Oslo and University 1 Introduction Defense (DOD). It is uncertain when DoD really Graduate Center The concept of computer networking started in the standardized on the entire protocol suite built around at Kjeller early 1960s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- TCP/IP, since for several years they also followed the ogy (MIT) with the vision of an “On-line community ISO standards track. of people”. Computers should facilitate communica- tions between people and be a support for human The development of the Internet, as we know it today, decision processes. In 1961 an MIT PhD thesis by went through three phases. The first one was the Leonard Kleinrock introduced some of the earliest research and development phase, sponsored and theoretical results on queuing networks. Around the supervised by ARPA. Research groups that actively same time a series of Rand Corporation papers, contributed to the development process and many mainly authored by Paul Baran, sketched a hypotheti- who explored its potential for resource sharing were cal system for communication while under attack that permitted to connect to and use the network.
    [Show full text]