RFC (unknown status)
Response to RFC 111: Pressure from the chairman. J.F. Heafner. April 1971. RFC130. (Format: TXT=2580 bytes) (Updates RFC111) (Status: UNKNOWN) (DOI: 10.17487 / RFC130)
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]
Heafner [Page 1]
Java Enterprise Edition (EE)
Java Standard Edition (SE)
RFC (standard status)
RFC (proposed standard status)
RFC (draft standard status)
RFC (informational status)
RFC (experimental status)
RFC (best current practice status)
RFC (historic status)
RFC (unknown status)
All information of this service is derived from the free sources and is provided solely in the form of quotations.
This service provides information and interfaces solely for the familiarization (not ownership) and under the "as is" condition.
Copyright 2016 © ELTASK.COM. All rights reserved.
Site is optimized for mobile devices.
Downloads: 3106 / . Delta: 0.04618 с