Browse Prior Art Database

Suggested solution to the naming, addressing, and delivery problem for ARPANET message systems (RFC0757)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003805D
Original Publication Date: 1979-Sep-10
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 14 page(s) / 35K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

D.P. Deutsch: AUTHOR

Abstract

The current ARPAnet message handling scheme has evolved from rather informal, decentralized beginnings. Early developers took advantage of pre-existing tools -- TECO, FTP -- in order to implement their first systems. Later, protocols were developed to codify the conventions already in use. While these conventions have been able to support an amazing variety and amount of service, they have a number of shortcomings.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 8% of the total text.

RFC 757

A Suggested Solution to the Naming, Addressing, and Delivery

Problem for ARPAnet Message Systems

Debra P. Deutsch

10 September 1979

Bolt Beranek and Newman

50 Moulton Street

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

(617) 491-1850

Preface Page 1

Preface

Unlike many RFCs, this is not a specification of a

soon-to-be-implemented protocol. Instead this is a true request

for comments on the concepts and suggestions found within this

document, written with the hope that its content, and any

discussion which it spurs, will contribute towards the design of

the next generation of computer-based message creation and

delivery systems.

A number of people have made contributions to the form and

content of this document. In particular, I would like to thank

Jerry Burchfiel for his general and technical advice and

encouragement, Bob Thomas for his wisdom about the TIP Login

database and design of a netmail database, Ted Myer for playing

devil's advocate, and Charlotte Mooers for her excellent

editorial assistance.

Debbie Deutsch

RFC 757 September 1979

Introduction Page 2

1. Introduction

The current ARPAnet message handling scheme has evolved from

rather informal, decentralized beginnings. Early developers took

advantage of pre-existing tools -- TECO, FTP -- in order to

implement their first systems. Later, protocols were developed

to codify the conventions already in use. While these

conventions have been able to support an amazing variety and

amount of service, they have a number of shortcomings.

One difficulty is the naming/addressing problem, which deals

with the need both to identify the recipient and to indicate

correctly a delivery point for the message. The current paradigm

is deficient in that it lacks a sharp distinction between the

recipient's name and the recipient's address, which is the

delivery point on the net.

The naming/addressing scheme does not allow users to address

their messages using human names, but instead forces them to

employ designations better designed for machine parsing than

human identification.

Another source of limitations lies in the delivery system,

which is simply an extension of the File Transfer Proto...