Browse Prior Art Database

Request For Comments reference guide (RFC1000) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000001803D
Original Publication Date: 1987-Aug-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2002-Jan-29

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J.K. Reynolds: AUTHOR [+1]


implementation of the protocol known as the Network Control Program. ("NCP" later came to be used as the name for the protocol, but it originally meant the program within the operating system that managed connections. The protocol itself was known blandly only as the host-host protocol.) Along with the basic host-host protocol, we also envisioned a hierarchy of protocols, with Telnet, FTP and some splinter protocols as the first examples. If we had only consulted the ancient mystics, we would have seen immediately that seven layers were required.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 1% of the total text.

Network Working Group                                        J. Reynolds

Request for Comments: 1000                                     J. Postel


                                                             August 1987

Obsoletes: RFCs 084, 100, 160, 170, 200, 598, 699, 800, 899, 999



   This RFC is a reference guide for the Internet community which

   summarizes of all the Request for Comments issued between April 1969

   and March 1987.  This guide also categorizes the RFCs by topic.


   This RFC Reference Guide is intended to provide a historical account

   by categorizing and summarizing of the Request for Comments numbers 1

   through 999 issued between the years 1969-1987.  These documents have

   been crossed referenced to indicate which RFCs are current, obsolete,

   or revised.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

THE ORIGINS OF RFCS - by Stephen D. Crocker

   The DDN community now includes hundreds of nodes and thousands of

   users, but once it was all a gleam in Larry Roberts' eye.  While much

   of the development proceeded according to a grand plan, the design of

   the protocols and the creation of the RFCs was largely accidental.

   The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968 --

   Remember Vietnam, flower children, etc?  There had been prior

   experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems,

   but this was the first version to explore packet-switching on a grand

   scale.  ("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA" until 1972.)  Unlike most of

   the ARPA/IPTO procurements of the day, this was a competitive

   procurement. The contract called for four IMPs to be delivered to

   UCLA, SRI, UCSB and The University of Utah.  These sites were running

   a Sigma 7 with the SEX operating system, an SDS 940 with the Genie

   operating system, an IBM 360/75 with OS/MVT (or perhaps OS/MFT), and

   a DEC PDP-10 with the Tenex operating system.  Options existed for

   additional nodes if the first experiments were successful.  BBN won

   the procurement in December 1968, but that gets ahead of this story.

   Part of the reason for selecting these four sites was these were

   existing ARPA computer science research contractors.  The precise

   usage of the ARPANET was not spelled out in advance, and the research

   community could be counted on to take some initiative.  To stimulate

   this process, a meeting was called during the summer with

   representatives from the selected sites, chaired by Elmer Shapiro

Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 1]

RFC 1000 - Request for Comments Reference Guide              August 1987

   from SRI.  If memory serves me correctly, Jeff Rulifson came from

   SRI, Ron Stoughton from UCSB, Steve Carr from Utah and I came from

   UCLA. (Apologies to anyone I've left out; records are inaccessible or

   lost at this point.)  At this point we knew only that the network was

   coming, but the precise details weren't known.

   That first meeting was seminal.  We had lots of questions -- how IMPs

   and hosts would be connected, what hosts would say to each other, and

   what applications would be supported.  No one had any answers, but

   the prospects seemed exciting.  We found ourselves imagini...