Dismiss
InnovationQ/InnovationQ Plus content will be updated on Sunday, June 25, 10am ET, with new patent and non-patent literature collections. Click here to learn more.
Browse Prior Art Database

Proposal to consider a network program resource notebook (RFC0446)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003599D
Original Publication Date: 1973-Jan-25
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 1 page(s) / 3K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

L.P. Deutsch: AUTHOR

Abstract

The recent requests by Jean Iseli of MITRE for information about all resources of type X available on the network (where X=macro processors, data management systems, and electromagnetic wave analysis programs) lead me to suggest that the NIC be a repository for the replies.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 100% of the total text.

Network Working Group L. Peter Deutsch

RFC # 446 SRI

NIC # 14068 January 25, 1973

Proposal to consider a Network Program Resource Notebook

The recent requests by Jean Iseli of MITRE for information about all

resources of type X available on the network (where X=macro processors,

data management systems, and electromagnetic wave analysis programs)

lead me to suggest that the NIC be a repository for the replies.

Since the exchange of knowledge and techniques (not to mention

programs) is a central motivating factor in the development of the

ARPANET, it seems only reasonable that we begin to systematize the

process now that someone (MITRE and the government agencies on whose

behalf it is acting) feels there is enough information to be worth

collecting.

Obviously, the network community should be in a position to profit

from such compilation at least as much as outside agencies.

The NIC already has catalog and keyword capabilities for the Journal and

a large index of computer-related documents which are not on-line. I

would presume that extending this system to include programs and

documentation would not be a major task and would probably bring

immediate payoffs in terms of increased effectiveness of research sites.

This suggestion does not touch on the important larger issue, namely,

what obligations does the network community have to act as a service and

information resource to the outside world (government agencies in

particular) as opposed to its presumed major function of learning about

how to build and use computer networks and its actual major function of

research in many areas of computing which have nothing to do with

networks at all.

I feel that the confusion between the ARPANET as a service network

and the ARPANET as an experiment in the line of network research,

and the frustrations and communication failures resulting from

superimposing network responsibilities on top of existing research

projects, have not received adequate contemplation by the network

community.

I also feel that the ambiguous status of the network has lead to a

sharp division between research/maintenance sites and government

agency user sites, a situation which only can exacerbate my own

feeling that to some extent the former are being exploited for non-

research purposes in a manner that has been fairly rare in the

history or ARPA/IPT.

[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]

[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]

[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 9/99 ]