faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 130 - Response to RFC 111: Pressure from the chairman


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                         J. Heafner
Request for Comments: 130                                           Rand
NIC 5848                                                   22 April 1971

           RESPONSE TO RFC #111 (PRESSURE FROM THE CHAIRMAN)

   The purpose of RFC #111, as I interpret it, is two-fold:  1) To
   establish realistic implementation schedules and to make them known
   to the Network community so as to expedite everyone's planning of
   productive use of Network Services.  2) To uncover implementation
   techniques and strategies that were most successful and might be
   useful in future implementations.

   RFC #111 asks for implementation schedules.  I have not "prodded"
   host teams yet because an integral part of those schedules includes
   TELNET for which no specification is known to everyone.  Tom
   O'Sullivan, Raytheon (TELNET Chairman) and John Melvin, SRI (TELNET
   Committee Member) advise me that a TELNET RFC will be generated soon.
   I will subsequently contact site liaisons concerning a schedule.

   I will talk with Alex McKenzie, BBN about the form of publication of
   these schedules.  Alex and I agree that they should be published as
   an RFC updating NIC Memo #5767 (ARPA Network Site Status).  I will
   collect and compile the information via phone, mail or NIC and send
   it to Alex for technical editing and subsequent NIC RFC publication.

   Alex informed me that the forthcoming Resource Notebook (see NIC
   #5760) includes much of the information on use of services, obtaining
   job numbers, etc.  RFC #111 schedules will be an update of NIC #5767
   and may reference, but will not duplicate, the Resource Notebook.

   One begins to wonder why I'm in this loop since Alex has the
   responsibility to periodically update NIC #5767.  The reason, as RFC
   #111 states, is that Rand will assist in testing implementations
   remotely.  To facilitate testing, I would like first-hand information
   on schedules and comments on how we might be of service in this
   respect.  Testing will be short-term and will not go beyond what is
   included in RFC #111.  I will contact site liaisons shortly to find
   out if and how we can be of assistance in this capacity.

   Please feel free to contact either me or Eric Harslem regarding this
   RFC or RFC #111.

        [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
      [into the online RFC archives by Alison M. De La Cruz 12/00]

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA