Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                            V. CerfRequest for Comments:  1160                                          NRIObsoletes: RFC1120                                             May 1990The Internet Activities BoardStatus of this Memo   This RFC provides a history and description of the Internet   Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations.  This memo   is for informational use and does not constitute a standard.  This is   a revision ofRFC 1120.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.1. Introduction   In 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)   initiated an effort to develop a technology which is now known as   packet switching.  This technology had its roots in message switching   methods, but was strongly influenced by the development of low-cost   minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during the   mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78].  A very   useful survey of this technology can be found in [IEEE 78].   During the early 1970's, DARPA initiated a number of programs to   explore the use of packet switching methods in alternative media   including mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78].  Concurrently,   Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) began an exploration of packet   switching on coaxial cable which ultimately led to the development of   Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76].   The successful implementation of packet radio and packet satellite   technology raised the question of interconnecting ARPANET with other   types of packet nets.  A possible solution to this problem was   proposed by Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] in the form of an internetwork   protocol and a set of gateways to connect the different networks.   This solution was further developed as part of a research program in   internetting sponsored by DARPA and resulted in a collection of   computer communications protocols based on the original Transmission   Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower level counterpart, Internet   Protocol (IP).  Together, these protocols, along with many others   developed during the course of the research, are referred to as the   TCP/IP Protocol Suite [RFC 1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK   86].   In the early stages of the Internet research program, only a few   researchers worked to develop and test versions of the internet   protocols.  Over time, the size of this activity increased until, inCerf                                                           [Page 1]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   1979, it was necessary to form an informal committee to guide the   technical evolution of the protocol suite.  This group was called the   Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) and was established by   Dr. Vinton Cerf who was then the DARPA program manager for the   effort. Dr. David C. Clark of the Laboratory for Computer Science at   Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named the chairman of this   committee.   In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency, then responsible   for the operation of the ARPANET, declared the TCP/IP protocol suite   to be standard for the ARPANET and all systems on the network   converted from the earlier Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP.   Late that year, the ICCB was reorganized by Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf's   successor at DARPA, around a series of task forces considering   different technical aspects of internetting.  The re-organized group   was named the Internet Activities Board.   As the Internet expanded, it drew support from U.S. Government   organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF),   the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space   Administration (NASA).  Key managers in these organizations,   responsible for computer networking research and development, formed   an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC)   to coordinate U.S. Government support for and development and use of   the Internet system.  The FRICC sponsored most of the U.S. research   on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board   and its subsidiary organizations.   In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a larger initiative   sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal Coordinating   Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET).  The   reorganization created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and its   Working Groups.  The membership of the FNC included all the former   FRICC members and many other U.S. Government representatives.  The   first chairman of the FNC is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the National   Science Foundation.  The FNC is the Federal Government's body for   coordinating the agencies that support the Internet.  It provides   liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by the   President's Science Advisor) which is responsible for setting science   and technology policy affecting the Internet.  It endorses and   employs the existing planning and operational activities of the   community-based bodies that have grown up to manage the Internet in   the United States.  The FNC plans to involve user and supplier   communities through creation of an external advisory board and will   coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives ranging   from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to educational   applications.  The FNC has also participated in planning for the   creation of a National Research and Education Network in the UnitedCerf                                                           [Page 2]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   States.   At the international level, a Coordinating Committee for   Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed which   includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America and   Europe.  Co-chaired by the executive directors of the FNC and the   European Association of Research Networks (RARE), the CCIRN provides   a forum for cooperative planning among the principal North American   and European research networking bodies.2. Internet Activities Board   The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee for   Internet design, engineering and management.  The Internet is a   collection of over two thousand of packet switched networks located   principally in the U.S., but also in many other parts of the world,   all interlinked and operating using the protocols of the TCP/IP   protocol suite.  The IAB is an independent committee of researchers   and professionals with a technical interest in the health and   evolution of the Internet system.  Membership changes with time to   adjust to the current realities of the research interests of the   participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns of   constituent members of the Internet.   IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet function   effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future.  New   members are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice and   consent of the remaining members.  The chairman serves a term of two   years and is elected by the members of the IAB.  The IAB focuses on   the TCP/IP protocol suite, and extensions to the Internet system to   support multiple protocol suites.   The IAB has two principal subsidiary task forces:      1)  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)      2)  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)   Each of these Task Forces is led by a chairman and guided by a   Steering Group which reports to the IAB through its chairman.  Each   task force is organized, by the chairman, as required, to carry out   its charter.  For the most part, a collection of Working Groups   carries out the work program of each Task Force.   All decisions of the IAB are made public.  The principal vehicle by   which IAB decisions are propagated to the parties interested in the   Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for Comment   (RFC) note series.  The archival RFC series was initiated in 1969 byCerf                                                           [Page 3]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   Dr. Stephen D. Crocker as a means of documenting the development of   the original ARPANET protocol suite [RFC 1000].  The editor-in-chief   of this series, Dr. Jonathan B. Postel, has maintained the quality of   and managed the archiving of this series since its inception.  A   small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards.  Most of   them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion.  The small   number which document standards are especially marked in a "status"   section to indicate the special status of the document.  An RFC   summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published regularly   [RFC 1140].   RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions   whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly to   the RFC editor.  A Standard Protocol starts out as a Proposed   Standard and may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally Standard   after suitable review, comment, implementation and testing.   Prior to publication of a Proposed Standard RFC, it is made available   for comment through an on-line Internet-Draft directory.  Typically,   these Internet-Drafts are working documents of the IAB or of the   working groups of the Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces.   Internet-Drafts are either submitted to the RFC editor for   publication or discarded within 3-6 months.  Prior to promotion to   Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and review   cycle may be initiated if significant changes to the RFC are   contemplated.   The IAB performs the following functions:      1)   Sets Internet Standards,      2)   Manages the RFC publication process,      3)   Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,      4)   Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying           long-range problems and opportunities,      5)   Acts as an international technical policy liaison and           representative for the Internet community, and      6)   Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within           the IETF or IRTF frameworks.   To supplement its work via electronic mail, the IAB meets quarterly   to review the condition of the Internet, to review and approve   proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols, to   set technical development priorities, to discuss policy matters whichCerf                                                           [Page 4]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   may need the attention of the Internet sponsors, and to agree on the   addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition or   retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB.  Typically, two of   the quarterly meetings are by means of video teleconferencing   (provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet packet   video-conferencing system).  The minutes of the IAB meetings are   published in the Internet Monthly on-line report.   The IAB membership is currently as follows:            Vinton Cerf/CNRI              Chairman            Robert Braden/USC-ISI         Executive Director            David Clark/MIT-LCS           IRTF Chairman            Phillip Gross/CNRI            IETF Chairman            Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI       RFC Editor            Hans-Werner Braun/Merit       Member            Lyman Chapin/DG               Member            Stephen Kent/BBN              Member            Anthony Lauck/Digital         Member            Barry Leiner/RIACS            Member            Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc.    Member3.  The Internet Engineering Task Force   The Internet has grown to encompass a large number of widely   geographically dispersed networks in academic and research   communities.  It now provides an infrastructure for a broad community   with various interests.  Moreover, the family of Internet protocols   and system components has moved from experimental to commercial   development.  To help coordinate the operation, management and   evolution of the Internet, the IAB established the Internet   Engineering Task Force (IETF).  The IETF is chaired by Mr. Phillip   Gross and managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).   The IAB has delegated to the IESG the general responsibility for   making the Internet work and for the resolution of all short- and   mid-range protocol and architectural issues required to make the   Internet function effectively.   The charter of the IETF includes:      1) Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-term         Internet protocols and architecture and recommending         standards for IAB approval.      2) Provision of a forum for the exchange of information within         the Internet community.      3) Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-rangeCerf                                                           [Page 5]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990         operational and technical problem areas and convening of         Working Groups to explore solutions.   The Internet Engineering Task Force is a large open community of   network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with   the Internet and the Internet protocol suite.  It is organized around   a set of eight technical areas, each managed by a technical area   director.  In addition to the IETF Chairman, the area directors make   up the IESG membership.  Each area director has primary   responsibility for one area of Internet engineering activity, and   hence for a subset of the IETF Working Groups.  The area directors   have jobs of critical importance and difficulty and are selected not   only for their technical expertise but also for their managerial   skills and judgment.  At present, the eight technical areas and   chairs are:            1) Applications             -  Russ Hobby/UC-Davis            2) Host and User Services   -  Craig Partridge/BBN            3) Internet Services        -  Noel Chiappa/Consultant            4) Routing                  -  Robert Hinden/BBN            5) Network Management       -  David Crocker/DEC            6) OSI Integration          -  Ross Callon/DEC and                                           Robert Hagens/UWisc.            7) Operations               -  Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting)            8) Security                 -  Steve Crocker/TIS   The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as Working   Groups.  There are currently more than 40 of these.  Working Groups   tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of a   specific task, although there are exceptions.  The IETF is a major   source of proposed protocol standards, for final approval by the IAB.   The IETF meets quarterly and extensive minutes of the plenary   proceedings as well as reports from each of the working groups are   issued by the IAB Secretariat at the Corporation for National   Research Initiatives.4.  The Internet Research Task Force   To promote research in networking and the development of new   technology, the IAB established the Internet Research Task Force   (IRTF).   In the area of network protocols, the distinction between research   and engineering is not always clear, so there will sometimes be   overlap between activities of the IETF and the IRTF.  There is, in   fact, considerable overlap in membership between the two groups.   This overlap is regarded as vital for cross-fertilization and   technology transfer.  In general, the distinction between researchCerf                                                           [Page 6]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   and engineering is one of viewpoint and sometimes (but not always)   time-frame.  The IRTF is generally more concerned with understanding   than with products or standard protocols, although specific   experimental protocols may have to be developed, implemented and   tested in order to gain understanding.   The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with an   Internet focus.  The work of the IRTF is governed by its Internet   Research Steering Group (IRSG).  The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG is   David Clark.  The IRTF is organized into a number of Research Groups   (RGs) whose chairs of these are appointed by the chairman of the   IRSG. The RG chairs and others selected by the IRSG chairman serve on   the IRSG.  These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and each   covers a broad area of research, pursuing specific topics, determined   at least in part by the interests of the members and by   recommendations of the IAB.   The current members of the IRSG are as follows:            David Clark/MIT LCS     -   Chairman            Robert Braden/USC-ISI   -   End-to-End Services            Douglas Comer/PURDUE    -   Member-at-Large            Deborah Estrin/USC      -   Autonomous Networks            Stephen Kent/BBN        -   Privacy and Security            Keith Lantz/Consultant  -   Collaboration Technology            David Mills/UDEL        -   Member-at-Large5.  The Near-term Agenda of the IAB   There are seven principal foci of IAB attention for the period 1989 -   1990:      1) Operational Stability      2) User Services      3) OSI Coexistence      4) Testbed Facilities      5) Security      6) Getting Big      7) Getting Fast   Operational stability of the Internet is a critical concern for all   of its users.  Better tools are needed for gathering operational   data, to assist in fault isolation at all levels and to analyze the   performance of the system.  Opportunities abound for increased   cooperation among the operators of the various Internet components   [RFC 1109].  Specific, known problems should be dealt with, such as   implementation deficiencies in some versions of the BIND domain name   service resolver software.  To the extent that the existing ExteriorCerf                                                           [Page 7]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   Gateway Protocol (EGP) is only able to support limited topologies,   constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths should   be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System routing   protocol can be specified.  Flexiblity for Internet implementation   would be enhanced by the adoption of a common internal gateway   routing protocol by all vendors of internet routers.  A major effort   is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements RFCs   which were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989.   Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (electronic   mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing.  Efforts should   be focused on widespread deployment of these capabilities in the   Internet by mid-1990.  The IAB recommends that existing white pages   facilities and newer ones, such as X.500, be populated with up-to-   date user information and made accessible to Internet users and users   of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to the   Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail carriers   should be vigorously pursued, as well as links to other network   research communities in Europe and the rest of the world.   Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic mail   software should be accelerated in 1990 after release of public domain   software implementing the private electronic mail standards [RFC   1113,RFC 1114 andRFC 1115].  Finally, support for new or enhanced   applications such as computer-based conferencing, multi-media   messaging and collaboration support systems should be developed.   The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the FRICC   should be applied to support conferencing and collaboration protocol   development and application experiments and to support multi-vendor   router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing,   network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding).   With respect to growth in the Internet, architectural attention   should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions of   users and hundreds of thousands of networks.  The naming, addressing,   routing and navigation problems occasioned by such growth should be   analyzed.  Similarly, research should be carried out on analyzing the   limits to the existing Internet architecture, including the ability   of the present protocol suite to cope with speeds in the gigabit   range and latencies varying from microseconds to seconds in duration.   The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI protocols   by the end of 1990 or sooner, if possible.  Provision for multi-   protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is one   important goal.  Introduction of X.400 electronic mail services and   interoperation withRFC 822/SMTP [RFC 822,RFC 821,RFC 987,RFC1026, andRFC 1148] should be targeted for 1990 as well.  TheseCerf                                                           [Page 8]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990   efforts will need to work in conjunction with the White Pages   services mentioned above.  The IETF, in particular, should establish   liaison with various OSI working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE, Network   Management Forum) to coordinate planning for OSI introduction into   the Internet and to facilitate registration of information pertinent   to the Internet with the various authorities responsible for OSI   standards in the United States.   Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be made   to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host managers   concerning configuration management, known security problems (and   their solutions) and software and technologies available to provide   enhanced security and privacy to the users of the Internet.REFERENCES       [BARAN 64]  Baran, P., et al, "On Distributed Communications",       Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August 1964.       [CERF 74]  Cerf V., and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network       Interconnection", IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-22,       No. 5, pp. 637-648, May 1974.       [CERF 82]  Cerf V., and E. Cain, "The DoD Internet Protocol       Architecture", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology Center       Symposium on Interoperability of Automated Data Systems,       November 1982.  Also in Computer Networks and ISDN,       Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1983.       [CLARK 86]  Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA       Internet protocols", Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Symposium,       Computer Communications Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 106-114,       August 1988.       [HEART 70]  Heart, F., Kahn, R., Ornstein, S., Crowther, W.,       and D. Walden, "The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA       Computer Network", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567,       June 1970.       [IEEE 78]  Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), Uncapher, K. and       H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the       IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks,       Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978.       [IEEE 87]  Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), Nielson, D., and       F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the       IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75,       No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987.Cerf                                                           [Page 9]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990       [LEINER 85]  Leiner, B., Cole, R., Postel, J., and D. Mills,       "The DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,       March 1985.  Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.       [METCALFE 76]  Metcalfe, R., and D. Boggs, "Ethernet:       Distributed Packet for Local Computer Networks", Communications       of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976.       [POSTEL 85]  Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the       DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,       March 1985.       [RFC 821]  Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",RFC 821,       USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.       [RFC 822]  Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet       Text Messages",RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982.       [RFC 987]  Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400 andRFC 822",       University College London, June 1986.       [RFC 1000]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "The Request for       Comments Reference Guide",RFC 1000, USC/Information Sciences       Institute, August 1987.       [RFC 1026]  Kille, S., "Addendum toRFC 987: (Mapping between       X.400 andRFC 822)",RFC 1026, University College London,       September 1987.       [RFC 1109]  Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network       Management Review Group",RFC 1109, NRI, August 1989.       [RFC 1113]  Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet       Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and       Authentication Procedures",RFC 1113, IAB Privacy Task       Force, August 1989.       [RFC 1114]  Kent, S.,  and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement for       Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based Key       Management",RFC 1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.       [RFC 1115]  Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet       Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers",RFC 1115, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.       [RFC 1140]  Postel, J., Editor, "IAB Official Protocol       Standards",RFC 1140, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.Cerf                                                          [Page 10]

RFC 1160                        The IAB                        May 1990       [RFC 1148]  Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021       andRFC 822",RFC 1048, UCL, March 1990.       [ROBERTS 70]  Roberts, L., and B. Wessler, "Computer Network       Development to Achieve Resource Sharing", pp. 543-549,       Proc. SJCC 1970.       [ROBERTS 78]  Roberts, L., "Evolution of Packet Switching",       Proc.  IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 1307-1313, November 1978.   Note:  RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI   International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, (1-800-   235-3155), or on-line via anonymous file transfer from NIC.DDN.MIL.Author's Address   Vinton G. Cerf   Corporation for National Research Initiatives   1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100   Reston, VA 22091   Phone: (703) 620-8990   EMail: VCERF@NRI.RESTON.VA.USCerf                                                          [Page 11]