Browse Prior Art Database

Comments on Mailbox Protocol (RFC0224) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002798D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Sep-14
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 3K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

A.M. McKenzie: AUTHOR


It should be noted that the Terminal IMP will be unable to directly implement the currently-proposed mailbox protocol for the following reasons:

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 87% of the total text.

Network Working Group Alex McKenzie

Request for Comments #224 BBN

NIC #7623 14 September 1971

Categories: D.7

Updates: none

Obsoletes: none

Reference: RFC #215, #221

Comments on Mailbox Protocol

It should be noted that the Terminal IMP will be unable to

directly implement the currently-proposed mailbox protocol for

the following reasons:

a) The Terminal IMP is completely incapable of storing

incoming messages for later printing or display.

b) The Terminal IMP is not expected to be able to perform

as the "server" portion of any connection.

c) The Terminal IMP cannot provide programs for the

processing of a variety of types of input streams.

It currently supports the TELNET protocol, and is

expected to support at least one mode of Data

Transfer Protocol in the future. It is _not_ likely

to support the File Transfer Protocol. Furthermore,

when using the Data Transfer Protocol it will not

perform any transformations on the data stream

(e.g., interpretation of line printer form-control

"characters," translation from one character set to

another, etc.). It will be up to the "other end"

of the connection to set up and decode messages based

on the terminal type.

Although these limitations preclude Terminal IMPs from

participating in the currently-proposed mailbox protocol, this

should not be considered an objection to implementation of the

protocol, provided that Terminal IMP installations will be

guaranteed the right to "rent" mailboxes at some larger Host

site [the NIC is probably a good candidate]. With this capability,

a message destined for a Terminal IMP user would be shipped to the

site of the "rented" mailbox according to protocol and stored

there. A terminal IMP user could then periodically log in to that

Page 2

site (under TELNET protocol) and examine the contents of the

mailbox; since the "examination" would be carried out over a

TELNET connection the Host containing the mailbox would _automatically_

perform the necessary transformation of the data before transmitting

it to the Terminal IMP.

A technically unattractive alternative to this scheme would

be to _require_ each Terminal IMP site to have a printer dedicated

to the mailbox function. If the mail were then transferred in

TELNET format, we could probably provide a socket connected to

the dedicated printer for receipt of mail. Obviously, if this

scheme were chosen, a Terminal IMP could accept mail from only

one sender at a time, and the transmission rate would be limited

to the speed of the printer. Furthermore, a single central

mailbox printer is likely to provide poor service to Terminal

IMPs with widely scattered terminals (e.g., dial-in terminals

distributed over an area with a 10-mile radius).

We feel that, in addition to other arguments, it would be

more cost-eff...