Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         J. HeafnerRequest for Comments: 130                                           RandNIC 5848                                                   22 April 1971RESPONSE 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]Heafner                                                         [Page 1]