Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                 RFC Editor, et al.Request for Comments: 2555                                       USC/ISICategory: Informational                                     7 April 1999                            30 Years of RFCsStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.Table of Contents1.  Introduction..................................................22.  Reflections...................................................23.  The First Pebble: Publication ofRFC 1........................34.  RFCs - The Great Conversation.................................55.  Reflecting on 30 years of RFCs................................96.  Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years...........................147.  Security Considerations.......................................158.  Acknowledgments...............................................159.  Authors' Addresses............................................1510. APPENDIX -RFC 1..............................................1711. Full Copyright Statement......................................18RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 19991. Introduction - Robert Braden   Thirty years ago today, the first Request for Comments document,RFC 1, was published at UCLA (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1.txt).   This was the first of a series that currently contains more than 2500   documents on computer networking, collected, archived, and edited by   Jon Postel for 28 years.  Jon has left us, but this 30th anniversary   tribute to the RFC series is assembled in grateful admiration for his   massive contribution.   The rest of this document contains a brief recollection from the   present RFC Editor Joyce K. Reynolds, followed by recollections from   three pioneers: Steve Crocker who wroteRFC 1, Vint Cerf whose long-   range vision continues to guide us, and Jake Feinler who played a key   role in the middle years of the RFC series.2. Reflections - Joyce K. Reynolds   A very long time ago when I was dabbling in IP network number and   protocol parameter assignments with Jon Postel, gateways were still   "dumb", the Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) was in its infancy and   TOPS-20 was in its heyday.  I was aware of the Request for Comments   (RFCs) document series, with Jon as the RFC Editor.  I really didn't   know much of the innerworkings of what the task entailed.  It was   Jon's job and he quietly went about publishing documents for the   ARPANET community.   Meanwhile, Jon and I would have meetings in his office to go over our   specific tasks of the day.  One day, I began to notice that a pile of   folders sitting to one side of his desk seemed to be growing.  A few   weeks later the pile had turned into two stacks of folders.  I asked   him what they were.  Apparently, they contained documents for RFC   publication.  Jon was trying to keep up with the increasing quantity   of submissions for RFC publication.   I mentioned to him one day that he should learn to let go of some of   his work load and task it on to other people.  He listened intently,   but didn't comment.  The very next day, Jon wheeled a computer stand   into my office which was stacked with those documents from his desk   intended for RFC publication.  He had a big Cheshire cat grin on his   face and stated, "I'm letting go!", and walked away.   At the top of the stack was a big red three ring notebook.  Inside   contained the "NLS Textbook", which was prepared at ISI by Jon, Lynne   Sims and Linda Sato for use on ISI's TENEX and TOPS-20 systems.  Upon   reading its contents, I learned that the NLS system was designed to   help people work with information on a computer.  It included a wide   range of tools, from a simple set of commands for writing, readingRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   and printing documents to sophisticated methods for retrieving and   communication information.  NLS was the system Jon used to write,   edit and create the RFCs.  Thus began my indoctrination to the RFC   publication series.   Operating systems and computers have changed over the years, but   Jon's perseverance about the consistency of the RFC style and quality   of the documents remained true.  Unfortunately, Jon did not live to   see the 30th Anniversary of this series that he unfailingly nurtured.   Yet, the spirit of the RFC publication series continues as we   approach the new millennium.  Jon would be proud.3. The First Pebble: Publication ofRFC 1 - Steve CrockerRFC 1, "Host Software", issued thirty years ago on April 7, 1969   outlined some thoughts and initial experiments.  It was a modest and   entirely forgettable memo, but it has significance because it was   part of a broad initiative whose impact is still with us today.   At the timeRFC 1 was written, the ARPANET was still under design.   Bolt, Beranek and Newman had won the all-important contract to build   and operate the Interface Message Processors or "IMPs", the   forerunners of the modern routers.  They were each the size of a   refrigerator and cost about $100,000 in 1969 dollars.   The network was scheduled to be deployed among the research sites   supported by ARPA's Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO).   The first four nodes were to be at UCLA, SRI, University of   California, Santa Barbara and University of Utah.  The first   installation, at UCLA, was set for September 1, 1969.   Although there had been considerable planning of the topology, leased   lines, modems and IMPs, there was little organization or planning   regarding network applications.  It was assumed the research sites   would figure it out.  This turned out to be a brilliant management   decision at ARPA.   Previously, in the summer of 1968, a handful of graduate students and   staff members from the four sites were called together to discuss the   forthcoming network.  There was only a basic outline.  BBN had not   yet won the contract, and there was no technical specification for   the network's operation.  At the first meeting, we scheduled future   meetings at each of the other laboratories, thus setting the stage   for today's thrice yearly movable feast.  Over the next couple of   years, the group grew substantially and we found ourselves with   overflow crowds of fifty to a hundred people at Network Working Group   meetings.  Compared to modern IETF meetings all over the world with   attendance in excess of 1,000 people and several dozen active workingRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   groups, the early Network Working Groups were small and tame, but   they seemed large and only barely manageable at the time.  One   tradition that doesn't seem to have changed at all is the spirit of   unrestrained participation in working group meetings.   Our initial group met a handful of times in the summer and fall of   1968 and winter 1969.  Our earliest meetings were unhampered by   knowledge of what the network would look like or how it would   interact with the hosts.  Depending on your point of view, this   either allowed us or forced us to think about broader and grander   topics.  We recognized we would eventually have to get around to   dealing with message formats and other specific details of low-level   protocols, but our first thoughts focused on what applications the   network might support.  In our view, the 50 kilobit per second   communication lines being used for the ARPANET seemed slow, and we   worried that it might be hard to provide high-quality interactive   service across the network.  I wish we had not been so accurate!   When BBN issued its Host-IMP specification in spring 1969, our   freedom to wander over broad and grand topics ended.  Before then,   however, we tried to consider the most general designs and the most   exciting applications.  One thought that captured our imagination was   the idea of downloading a small interpretative program at the   beginning of a session.  The downloaded program could then control   the interactions and make efficient use of the narrow bandwidth   between the user's local machine and the back-end system the user was   interacting with. Jeff Rulifson at SRI was the prime mover of this   line of thinking, and he took a crack at designing a Decode-Encode   Language (DEL) [RFC 5].  Michel Elie, visiting at UCLA from France,   worked on this idea further and published Proposal for a Network   Interchange Language (NIL) [RFC 51].  The emergence of Java and   ActiveX in the last few years finally brings those early ideas to   fruition, and we're not done yet.  I think we will continue to see   striking advances in combining communication and computing.   I have already suggested that the early RFCs and the associated   Network Working Group laid the foundation for the Internet   Engineering Task Force.  Two all-important aspects of the early work   deserve mention, although they're completely evident to anyone who   participates in the process today.  First, the technical direction we   chose from the beginning was an open architecture based on multiple   layers of protocol.  We were frankly too scared to imagine that we   could define an all-inclusive set of protocols that would serve   indefinitely.  We envisioned a continual process of evolution and   addition, and obviously this is what's happened.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   The RFCs themselves also represented a certain sense of fear.  After   several months of meetings, we felt obliged to write down our   thoughts.  We parceled out the work and wrote the initial batch of   memos.  In addition to participating in the technical design, I took   on the administrative function of setting up a simple scheme for   numbering and distributing the notes.  Mindful that our group was   informal, junior and unchartered, I wanted to emphasize these notes   were the beginning of a dialog and not an assertion of control.   It's now been thirty years since the first RFCs were issued.  At the   time, I believed the notes were temporary and the entire series would   die off in a year or so once the network was running.  Thanks to the   spectacular efforts of the entire community and the perseverance and   dedication of Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds and their crew, the humble   series of Requests for Comments evolved and thrived.  It became the   mainstay for sharing technical designs in the Internet community and   the archetype for other communities as well.  Like the Sorcerer's   Apprentice, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams and our worst   fears.4. RFCs - The Great Conversation - Vint Cerf   A long time ago, in a network far, far away...   Considering the movement of planet Earth around the Sun and the Sun   around the Milky Way galaxy, that first network IS far away in the   relativistic sense. It takes 200 million years for the Sun to make   its way around the galaxy, so thirty years is only an eyeblink on the   galactic clock. But what a marvelous thirty years it has been! The   RFCs document the odyssey of the ARPANET and, later, the Internet, as   its creators and netizens explore, discover, build, re-build, argue   and resolve questions of design, concepts and applications of   computer networking.   It has been ultimately fascinating to watch the transformation of the   RFCs themselves from their earliest, tentative dialog form to today's   much more structured character. The growth of applications such as   email, bulletin boards and the world wide web have had much to do   with that transformation, but so has the scale and impact of the   Internet on our social and economic fabric. As the Internet has taken   on greater economic importance, the standards documented in the RFCs   have become more important and the RFCs more formal. The dialog has   moved to other venues as technology has changed and the working   styles have adapted.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   Hiding in the history of the RFCs is the history of human   institutions for achieving cooperative work. And also hiding in that   history are some heroes that haven't been acknowledged.  On this   thirtieth anniversary, I am grateful for the opportunity to   acknowledge some of them. It would be possible to fill a book with   such names - mostly of the authors of the RFCs, but as this must be a   brief contribution, I want to mention four of them in particular:   Steve Crocker, Jon Postel, Joyce K. Reynolds and Bob Braden.   Steve Crocker is a modest man and would likely never make the   observation that while the contents ofRFC 1 might have been entirely   forgettable, the act of writingRFC 1 was indicative of the brave and   ultimately clear-visioned leadership that he brought to a journey   into the unknown. There were no guides in those days - computer   networking was new and few historical milestones prepared us for what   lay ahead. Steve's ability to accommodate a diversity of views, to   synthesize them into coherence and, like Tom Sawyer, to persuade   others that they wanted to devote their time to working on the   problems that lay in the path of progress can be found in the early   RFCs and in the Network Working Group meetings that Steve led.   In the later work on Internet, I did my best to emulate the framework   that Steve invented: the International Network Working Group (INWG)   and its INWG Notes, the Internet Working Group and its Internet   Experiment Notes (IENs) were brazen knock-offs of Steve's   organizational vision and style.   It is doubtful that the RFCs would be the quality body of material   they are today were it not for Jonathan Postel's devotion to them   from the start. Somehow, Jon knew, even thirty years ago that it   might be important to document what was done and why, to say nothing   of trying to capture the debate for the benefit of future networkers   wondering how we'd reached some of the conclusions we did (and   probably shake their heads...).   Jon was the network's Boswell, but it was his devotion to quality and   his remarkable mix of technical and editing skills that permeate many   of the more monumental RFCs that dealt with what we now consider the   TCP/IP standards. Many bad design decisions were re-worked thanks to   Jon's stubborn determination that we all get it "right" - as the   editor, he simply would not let something go out that didn't meet his   personal quality filter. There were times when we moaned and   complained, hollered and harangued, but in the end, most of the time,   Jon was right and we knew it.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   Joyce K. Reynolds was at Jon's side for much of the time that Jon was   the RFC editor and as has been observed, they functioned in unison   like a matched pair of superconducting electrons - and   superconductors they were of the RFC series. For all practical   purposes, it was impossible to tell which of the two had edited any   particular RFC. Joyce's passion for quality has matched Jon's and   continues to this day. And she has the same subtle, puckish sense of   humor that emerged at unexpected moments in Jon's stewardship. One   example that affected me personally was Joyce's assignment of number   2468 to the RFC written to remember Jon.  I never would have thought   of that, and it was done so subtly that it didn't even ring a bell   until someone sent me an email asking whether this was a coincidence.   In analog to classical mystery stories, the editor did it.   Another unsung hero in the RFC saga is Bob Braden - another man whose   modesty belies contributions of long-standing and monumental   proportions. It is my speculation that much of the quality of the   RFCs can be traced to consultations among the USC/ISI team, including   Jon, Joyce and Bob among others. Of course,RFC 1122 and 1123 stand   as two enormous contributions to the clarity of the Internet   standards. For that task alone, Bob deserves tremendous appreciation,   but he has led the End-to-End Research Group for many years out of   which has come some of the most important RFCs that refine our   understanding of optimal implementation of the protocols, especially   TCP.   When the RFCs were first produced, they had an almost 19th century   character to them - letters exchanged in public debating the merits   of various design choices for protocols in the ARPANET. As email and   bulletin boards emerged from the fertile fabric of the network, the   far-flung participants in this historic dialog began to make   increasing use of the online medium to carry out the discussion -   reducing the need for documenting the debate in the RFCs and, in some   respects, leaving historians somewhat impoverished in the process.   RFCs slowly became conclusions rather than debates.   Jon permitted publication of items other than purely technical   documents in this series. Hence one finds poetry, humor (especially   the April 1 RFCs which are as funny today as they were when they were   published), and reprints of valuable reference material mixed into   the documents prepared by the network working groups.   In the early 1970s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency was   conducting several parallel research programs into packet switching   technology, after the stunning success of this idea in the ARPANET.   Among these were the Packet Radio Network, the Atlantic Packet   Satellite Network and the Internet projects. These each spawned note   series akin to but parallel to the RFCs. PRNET Notes, ARPA SatelliteRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   System Notes (bearing the obvious and unfortunate acronym...),   Internet Experiment Notes (IENs), and so on. After the Internet   protocols were mandated to be used on the ARPANET and other DARPA-   sponsored networks in January 1983 (SATNET actually converted before   that), Internet- related notes were merged into the RFC series. For a   time, after the Internet project seemed destined to bear fruit, IENs   were published in parallel with RFCs. A few voices, Danny Cohen's in   particular (who was then at USC/ISI with Jon Postel) suggested that   separate series were a mistake and that it would be a lot easier to   maintain and to search a single series. Hindsight seems to have   proven Danny right as the RFC series, with its dedicated editors,   seems to have borne the test of time far better than its more   ephemeral counterparts.   As the organizations associated with Internet continued to evolve,   one sees the RFCs adapting to changed circumstances. Perhaps the most   powerful influence can be seen from the evolution of the Internet   Engineering Task Force from just one of several task forces whose   chairpersons formed the Internet Activities Board to the dominant,   global Internet Standards development organization, managed by its   Internet Engineering Steering Group and operating under the auspices   of the Internet Society. The process of producing "standards-track"   RFCs is now far more rigorous than it once was, carries far more   impact on a burgeoning industry, and has spawned its own, relatively   informal "Internet Drafts" series of short-lived documents forming   the working set of the IETF working groups.   The dialogue that once characterized the early RFCs has given way to   thrice-annual face-to-face meetings of the IETF and enormous   quantities of email, as well as a growing amount of group-interactive   work through chat rooms, shared white boards and even more elaborate   multicast conferences. The parallelism and the increasing quantity of   transient dialogue surrounding the evolution of the Internet has made   the task of technology historians considerably more difficult,   although one can sense a counter-balancing through the phenomenal   amount of information accumulating in the World Wide Web. Even casual   searches often turn up some surprising and sometimes embarrassing old   memoranda - a number of which were once paper but which have been   rendered into bits by some enterprising volunteer.   The RFCs, begun so tentatively thirty years ago, and persistently   edited and maintained by Jon Postel and his colleagues at USC/ISI,   tell a remarkable story of exploration, achievement, and dedication   by a growing mass of internauts who will not sleep until the Internet   truly is for everyone. It is in that spirit that this remembrance is   offered, and in particular, in memory of our much loved colleague,   Jon Postel, without whose personal commitment to this archive, the   story might have been vastly different and not nearly as remarkable.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 19995. Reflecting on 30 years of RFCs - Jake Feinler   By now we know that the first RFC was published on April 7, 1969 by   Steve Crocker.  It was entitled "Host Software".  The second RFC was   published on April 9, 1969 by Bill Duvall of SRI International (then   called Stanford Research Institute or SRI), and it too was entitled   "Host Software".RFC 2 was a response to suggestions made inRFC 1-   -and so the dialog began.   Steve proposed 2 experiments inRFC 1:   "1)  SRI is currently modifying their on-line retrieval system which   will be the major software component of the Network Documentation   Center [or The SRI NIC as it soon came to be known] so that it can be   modified with Model 35 teletypes.  The control of the teletypes will   be written in DEL [Decode-Encode Language].  All sites will write DEL   compilers and use NLS [SRI Doug Engelbart's oNLine System] through   the DEL program".   "2)  SRI will write a DEL front end for full NLS, graphics included.   UCLA and UTAH will use NLS with graphics".RFC 2, issued 2 days later, proposed detailed procedures for   connecting to the NLS documentation system across the network.  Steve   may thinkRFC 1 was an "entirely forgettable" document; however, as   an information person, I beg to differ with him.  The concepts   presented in this first dialog were mind boggling, and eventually led   to the kind of network interchange we are all using on the web today.   (Fortunately, we have graduated beyond DEL and Model 35 teletypes!)RFC 1 was, I believe, a paper document.RFC 2 was produced online   via the SRI NLS system and was entered into the online SRI NLS   Journal.  However, it was probably mailed to each recipient via snail   mail by the NIC, as email and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) had   not yet been invented.RFC 3, again by Steve Crocker, was entitled, "Documentation   Conventions;" and we see that already the need for a few ground rules   was surfacing. More ground-breaking concepts were introduced in this   RFC.  It stated that:   "The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software,   the strategies for using the network, and the initial experiments   with the network.  Documentation of the NWG's effort is through notes   such as this.  Notes may be produced at any site by anybody and   included in this series".RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   It goes on to say:   "The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion,   etc.related to the Host software or other aspect of the network.   Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.   Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics, specific   suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or   background explanation, and explicit questions without any attempted   answers are all acceptable.  The minimum length for a NWG note is one   sentence".   "These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two   reasons.  First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as   discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.  Second,   there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we   hope to ease this inhibition".   Steve asked that this RFC be sent to a distribution list consisting   of:        Bob Kahn, BBN        Larry Roberts, ARPA        Steve Carr, UCLA        Jeff Rulifson, UTAH        Ron Stoughton, UCSB        Steve Crocker, UCLA   Thus by the time the third RFC was published, many of the concepts of   how to do business in this new networking environment had been   established--there would be a working group of implementers (NWG)   actually discussing and trying things out; ideas were to be free-   wheeling; communications would be informal; documents would be   deposited (online when possible) at the NIC and distributed freely to   members of the working group; and anyone with something to contribute   could come to the party.  With this one document a swath was   instantly cut through miles of red tape and pedantic process.  Was   this radical for the times or what!  And we were only up toRFC 3!   Many more RFCs followed and the SRI NLS Journal became the   bibliographic search service of the ARPANET.  It differed from other   search services of the time in one important respect:  when you got a   "hit" searching the journal online, not only did you get a citation   telling you such things as the author and title; you got an   associated little string of text called a "link".  If you used a   command called "jump to link",  voila!  you got the full text of the   document.  You did not have to go to the library, or send an order   off to an issuing agency to get a copy of the document, as was the   custom with other search services of the time.  The whole documentRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   itself was right there immediately!   Also, any document submitted to the journal could not be changed.   New versions could be submitted, and these superceded old versions,   but again the new versions could not be changed.  Each document was   given a unique identifying number, so it was easy to track.  These   features were useful in a fast-moving environment.  Documents often   went through several drafts before they were finally issued as an RFC   or other official document, and being able to track versions was very   useful.   The SRI NLS Journal was revolutionary for the time; however, access   to it online presented several operational problems.  Host computers   were small and crowded, and the network was growing by leaps and   bounds; so connections had to be timed out and broken to give   everyone a chance at access.  Also, the rest of the world was still a   paper world (and there were no scanners or laser printers, folks!),   so the NIC still did a brisk business sending out paper documents to   requestors.   By 1972 when I became Principal Investigator for the NIC project, the   ARPANET was growing rapidly, and more and more hosts were being   attached to it.  Each host was required to have a technical contact   known as the Technical Liaison, and most of the Liaison were also   members of the NWG.  Each Liaison was sent a set of documents by the   NIC called "functional documents" which included the Protocol   Handbook (first issued by BBN and later published by the NIC.)  The   content of the Protocol Handbook was made up of key RFCs and a   document called "BBN 1822" which specified the Host-to-Imp protocol.   The NWG informed the NIC as to which documents should be included in   the handbook; and the NIC assembled, published, and distributed the   book. Alex McKenzie of BBN helped the NIC with the first version of   the handbook, but soon a young fellow, newly out of grad school,   named Jon Postel joined the NWG and became the NIC's contact and   ARPA's spokesperson for what should be issued in the Protocol   Handbook.   No one who is familiar with the RFCs can think of them without   thinking of Dr. Jonathan Postel.  He was "Mister RFC" to most of us.   Jon worked at SRI in the seventies and had the office next to mine.   We were both members of Doug Engelbart's Augmentation Research   Center.  Not only was Jon a brilliant computer scientist, he also   cared deeply about the process of disseminating information and   establishing a methodology for working in a networking environment.   We often had conversations way into the wee hours talking about ways   to do this "right".  The network owes Jon a debt of gratitude for his   dedication to the perpetuation of the RFCs.  His work, along withRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   that of his staff, the NWG, the IETF, the various NICs, and CNRI to   keep this set of documents viable over the years was, and continues   to be, a labor of love.   Jon left SRI in 1976 to join USC-ISI, but by that time the die was   cast, and the RFCs, NWG, Liaison, and the NIC were part of the   network's way of doing business. However, the SRI NLS Journal system   was becoming too big for its host computer and could not handle the   number of users trying to access it.  Email and FTP had been   implemented by now, so the NIC developed methodology for delivering   information to users via distributed information servers across the   network.  A user could request an RFC by email from his host computer   and have it automatically delivered to his mailbox.  Users could also   purchase hardcopy subscriptions to the RFCs and copies of the   Protocol Handbook, if they did not have network access.   The NIC worked with Jon, ARPA, DCA, NSF, other NICs, and other   agencies to have secondary reference sets of RFCs easily accessible   to implementers throughout the world.  The RFCs were also shared   freely with official standards bodies, manufacturers and vendors,   other working groups, and universities.  None of the RFCs were ever   restricted or classified.  This was no mean feat when you consider   that they were being funded by DoD during the height of the Cold War.   Many of us worked very hard in the early days to establish the RFCs   as the official set of technical notes for the development of the   Internet.  This was not an easy job.  There were suggestions for many   parallel efforts and splinter groups.  There were naysayers all along   the way because this was a new way of doing things, and the ARPANET   was "coloring outside the lines" so to speak.  Jon, as Editor-in-   Chief was criticized because the RFCs were not issued by an   "official" standards body, and the NIC was criticized because it was   not an "official" document issuing agency.  We both strived to marry   the new way of doing business with the old, and fortunately were   usually supported by our government sponsors, who themselves were   breaking new ground.   Many RFCs were the end result of months of heated discussion and   implementation.  Authoring one of them was not for the faint of   heart.  Feelings often ran high as to what was the "right" way to go.   Heated arguments sometimes ensued.  Usually they were confined to   substance, but sometimes they got personal.  Jon would often step in   and arbitrate.  Eventually the NWG or the Sponsors had to say, "It's   a wrap.  Issue a final RFC".  Jon, as Editor-in-Chief of the RFCs,   often took merciless flak from those who wanted to continue   discussing and implementing, or those whose ideas were left on the   cutting room floor.  Somehow he always managed to get past these   controversies with style and grace and move on.  We owe him andRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   others, who served on the NWG or authored RFCs, an extreme debt of   gratitude for their contributions and dedication.   At no time was the controversy worse than it was when DoD adopted   TCP/IP as its official host-to-host protocols for communications   networks.  In March 1982, a military directive was issued by the   Under Secretary of Defense, Richard DeLauer.  It simply stated that   the use of TCP and IP was mandatory for DoD communications networks.   Bear in mind that a military directive is not something you discuss -   the time for discussion is long over when one is issued.  Rather a   military directive is something you DO.  The ARPANET and its   successor, the Defense Data Network, were military networks, so the   gauntlet was down and the race was on to prove whether the new   technology could do the job on a real operational network.  You have   no idea what chaos and controversy that little 2-page directive   caused on the network.  (But that's a story for another time.)   However, that directive, along with RFCs 791 and 793 (IP and TCP)   gave the RFCs as a group of technical documents stature and   recognition throughout the world.  (And yes, TCP/IP certainly did do   the job!)   Jon and I were both government contractors, so of course followed the   directions of our contracting officers.  He was mainly under contract   to ARPA, whereas the NIC was mainly under contract to DCA.  BBN was   another key contractor.  For the most part we all worked as a team.   However, there was frequent turnover in military personnel assigned   to both the ARPANET and the DDN, and we all collaborated to try to   get all the new participants informed as to what was available to   them when they joined the network.  We also tried to foster   collaboration rather than duplication of effort, when it was   appropriate.  The NWG (or IETF as it is now known) and the RFCs   became the main vehicles for interagency collaboration as the DoD   protocols began to be used on other government, academic, and   commercial networks.   I left SRI and the NIC project in 1989.  At that time there were   about 30,000 hosts on what was becoming known as the Internet, and   just over a 1000 RFCs had been issued.  Today there are millions of   hosts on the Internet, and we are well past the 3000 mark for RFCs.   It was great fun to be a part of what turned out to be a   technological revolution.   It is heartwarming to see that the RFCs   are still being issued by the IETF, and that they are still largely   based on ideas that have been discussed and implemented; that the   concepts of online working groups and distributed information servers   are a way of life; that those little "links" (officially known as   hypertext) have revolutionized the delivery of documents; and that   the government, academia, and business are now all playing the same   game for fun and profit.  (Oh yes, I'm happy to see that Steve's ideaRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   for integrated text and graphics has finally come to fruition,   although that work took a little longer than 2 days.)6. Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years - Celeste Anderson   Five years ago, Jon Postel and I had wanted to publish a 25th RFC   anniversary book, but, alas, we were both too busy working on other   projects.  We determined then that we should commemorate the   thirtieth anniversary by collecting together thirty "RFC Editors'   Choice" RFCs based on original ideas expressed throughout the first   30 years of their existence.   Jon's untimely death in October 1998 prevented us from completing   this goal.  We did, however, start to put online some of the early   RFCs, includingRFC 1.  We weren't sure whether we were going to try   to make them look as close to the typewritten originals as possible,   or to make a few adjustments and format them according to the latest   RFC style.  Those of you who still have your copies ofRFC 1 will   note the concessions we made to NROFF the online version.  The hand-   drawn diagrams of the early RFCs also present interesting challenges   for conversion into ASCII format.   There are still opportunities to assist the RFC Editor to put many of   the early RFCs online.  Check the URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online.html for more information on this   project.   In memory of Jon, we are compiling a book for publication next year   of "Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years".   We have set up a web interface athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/voterfc.html   for tabulating votes and recording the responses.  We will accept   email as well.  Please send your email responses to: voterfc@isi.edu.   We prefer votes accompanied by explanations for the vote choice.   We reserve the right to add to the list several RFCs that Jon Postel   had already selected for the collection.  Voting closes December 31,   1999.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 19997. Security Considerations   Security issues are not discussed in this commemorative RFC.8. Acknowledgments   Thank you to all the authors who contributed to this RFC on short   notice.  Thanks also to Fred Baker and Eve Schooler who goaded us   into action.  A special acknowledgment to Eitetsu Baumgardner, a   student at USC, who NROFFed this document and who assisted in the   formatting of RFCs 1, 54, and 62, converting hand-drawn diagrams into   ASCII format.9. Authors' Addresses   Robert Braden   USC/Information Sciences Institute   4676 Admiralty Way #1001   Marina del Rey, CA 90292   Phone:  +1 310-822-1511   Fax:    +1 310 823 6714   EMail:  braden@isi.edu   Joyce K. Reynolds   USC/Information Sciences Institute   4676 Admiralty Way #1001   Marina del Rey, CA 90292   Phone:  +1 310-822-1511   Fax:    +1 310-823-6714   EMail:  jkrey@isi.edu   Steve Crocker   Steve Crocker Associates, LLC   5110 Edgemoor Lane   Bethesda, MD 20814   Phone:   +1 301-654-4569   Fax:     +1 202-478-0458   EMail:   crocker@mbl.eduRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 1999   Vint Cerf   MCI   EMail: vcerf@mci.net   Jake Feinler   SRI Network Information Center   1972-1989   EMail: feinler@juno.com   Celeste Anderson   USC/Information Sciences Institute   4676 Admiralty Way #1001   Marina del Rey, CA 90292   Phone:  +1 310-822-1511   Fax:    +1 310-823-6714   EMail:  celeste@isi.eduRFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 199910. APPENDIX -RFC 1   The cover page said at the top:     "Network Working Group      Request for Comments"   and then came an internal UCLA distribution list:     V. Cerf, S. Crocker, M. Elie, G. Estrin, G. Fultz, A. Gomez,     D. Karas, L. Kleinrock, J. Postel, M. Wingfield, R. Braden,     and W. Kehl.   followed by an "Off Campus" distribution list:     A. Bhushan (MIT), S. Carr (Utah), G. Cole (SDC), W. English (SRI),     K. Fry (Mitre), J. Heafner (Rand), R. Kahn (BBN), L. Roberts (ARPA),     P. Rovner (MIT), and R. Stoughton (UCSB).   The following title page had     "Network Working Group      Request for Comments: 1"   at the top, and then:               HOST SOFTWARE               STEVE CROCKER               7 APRIL 1969RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2555                    30 Years of RFCs                7 April 199911. Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished   to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise   explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,   published and distributed, in whole or in part, without   restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice   and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative   works.  However, this document itself may not be modified in any   way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the   Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed   for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the   procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards   process must be followed, or as required to translate it into   languages other than English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not   be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on   an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.RFC Editor, et al.           Informational                     [Page 18]