IT. Expert System.

RFC (unknown status)

Proposed Moratorium on Changes to Network Protocol. R.D. Bressler. September 1970. RFC72. (Format: TXT=4047 bytes) (Status: UNKNOWN) (DOI: 10.17487 / RFC72)


 Network Working Group                                 Robert D. Bressler
Request for Comments #72                              M.I.T./Project MAC
                                                      September 28, 1970
           PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON CHANGES TO NETWORK PROTOCOL
       Bill Crowther's RFC No. 67 raised a much more  fundamental  issue
   than  the  question  of marking.  Any change to presently established
   protocol  is  going  to  involve  changes  in  the  hardware/software
   development  efforts  that have, in some instances, been going on for
   over 6 months.  In the case  of  Multics,  this  effort  has  yielded
   programs  either  complete or in the advanced debugging stages.  This
   is no doubt true for many other sites as well.
       The arguments being developed  here  are  not  that  the  present
   protocol  is  ideal,  but  rather that everyone has agreed that it is
   workable and has begun implementation of it.  We would therefore like
   to propose a moratorium on most changes to this protocol for the next
   6 months, or however long it takes to get this system running and  to
   observe its characteristics.
       Specifically this means not making changes that only  effect  the
   efficiency  or  ease of implementation.  If a major design problem is
   uncovered it should still be brought forward  for  consideration,  as
   could  issues that represent extensions to the existing system.  But,
   changes to the details of the present system should not be made.
       There are several points to be made in favor  of  this  argument.
                                [Page 1]
Network Working Group            RFC 72               Robert D. Bressler
   The  first,  and  perhaps  the  most important, is getting the system
   working as soon as possible.  The major benefits of the network  will
   be  in the uses to which it is put, and development along those lines
   cannot really get off its feet until the network is operational.   We
   feel that, although the effort needed to reprogram part of the NCP at
   a later date will undoubtedly be greater, it will be  hidden  by  the
   parallel  effort  then  going  on  involving network usage and higher
   level network development.
       Another problem that immediately arises is what should constitute
   an  official  change to the protocol.  The history of the development
   of the current protocol shows that once an  idea  is  raised,  it  is
   modified  many  times  before it is generally agreeable to all.  Thus
   each new suggestion  for  change  could  conceivably  retard  program
   development in terms of months.
       Finally there  is  the  consideration  that  an  idea  may  prove
   unfeasible  once  actual operation of the network begins.  Any one of
   the currently agreed upon issues may  be  reopened  when  full  scale
   testing begins to take place.
       We think that these considerations are important enough to freeze
   the  network  protocol  unless  any  problems arise that would make a
   certain feature unimplementable.   Changes  then  leading  simply  to
   greater  efficiency would be saved until actual network operation has
   been tested.
                                [Page 2]
Network Working Group            RFC 72               Robert D. Bressler
       This is not to say that new ideas  or  arguments  should  not  be
   brought  forward,  but  that  they should be brought forward with the
   understanding that they  are  not  to  be  considered  for  immediate
   implementation but rather to be discussed with a view toward possible
   later implementation.  This concept might  be  reflected  by  titling
   such documents, "Proposal for Post-Moratorium Changes to ..."
       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
          [ into the online RFC archives by Bob Hinden 6/97 ]
                                [Page 3] 


Content

Android Reference

Java basics

Java Enterprise Edition (EE)

Java Standard Edition (SE)

SQL

HTML

PHP

CSS

Java Script

MYSQL

JQUERY

VBS

REGEX

C

C++

C#

Design patterns

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)

IT dictionary

License.
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: 90 / 159176594. Delta: 0.00139 с