⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 rfc899.txt

📁 著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 3 页
字号:
Network Working Group                                          J. PostelRequest for Comments: 899                                     A. Westine                                                                     ISI                                                                May 1984                     Requests For Comments Summary                             Notes: 800-899Status of this Memo   This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 800   through RFC 899.  This is a status report on these RFCs.RFC     Author       Date        Title---     ------       ----        -----899     Postel       Apr 84      Requests For Comments Summary   This memo.898     Hinden       Apr 84      Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting                                 Notes   This memo is a report on the Gateway Special Interest Group Meeting   that was held at ISI on 28 and 29 February 1984.  Robert Hinden of   BBNCC chaired, and Jon Postel of ISI hosted the meeting.   Approximately 35 gateway designers and implementors attended.  These   notes are based on the recollections of Jon Postel and Mike Muuss.   Under each topic area are Jon Postel's brief notes, and additional   details from Mike Muuss.  This memo is a report on a meeting.  No   conclusions, decisions, or policy statements are documented in this   note.897     Postel       Feb 84      Domain Name System Implementation                                 Schedule   This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Domain   Style Naming System in the Internet.  This memo is a partial update   of RFC 881.  The intent of this memo is to detail the schedule for   the implementation for the Domain Style Naming System.  The names of   hosts will be changed to domain style names.  Hosts will begin to use   domain style names on 14-Mar-84, and the use of old style names will   be completely phased out before 2-May-84.  This applies to both the   ARPA research hosts and the DDN operational hosts.  This is an   official policy statement of the ICCB and the DARPA.Postel & Westine                                                [page 1]RFC 899                                                         May 1984896     Nagle        Jan 84      Congestion Control in IP/TCP                                 Internetworks   This memo discusses some aspects of congestion control in IP/TCP   Internetworks.  It is intended to stimulate thought and further   discussion of this topic.  While some specific suggestions are made   for improved congestion control implementation, this memo does not   specify any standards.895     Postel       Apr 84      A Standard for the Transmission of                                 IP Datagrams over Experimental Ethernet                                 Networks   This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet   Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Experimental Ethernet.  This RFC   specifies a standard protocol for the ARPA Internet community.894     Hornig       Apr 84      A Standard for the Transmission of                                 IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks   This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet   Protocol (IP) datagrams on an Ethernet.  This RFC specifies a   standard protocol for the ARPA-Internet community.893     Leffler      Apr 84      Trailer Encapsulations   This RFC discusses the motivation for use of "trailer encapsulations"   on local-area networks and describes the implementation of such an   encapsulation on various media.  This document is for information   only.  This is NOT an official protocol for the ARPA Internet   community.892     ISO          Dec 83      ISO Transport Protocol Specification   This is a draft version of the transport protocol being standardized   by the ISO.  This version also appeared in the ACM SIGCOMM Computer   Communication Review (V.12, N.3-4) July-October 1982.  This version   is now out of date.891     Mills        Dec 83      DCN Local-Network Protocols   This RFC provides a description of the DCN protocols for maintaining   connectivity, routing, and clock information in a local network.   These procedures may be of interest to the designers and implementers   of other local networks.Postel & Westine                                                [page 2]RFC 899                                                         May 1984890     Postel       Feb 84      Exterior Gateway Protocol                                 Implementation Schedule   This memo is a policy statement on the implementation of the Exterior   Gateway Protocol in the Internet.  This is an official policy   statement of ICCB and DARPA.  After 1-Aug-84 there shall be no dumb   gateways in the Internet. Every gateway must be a member of some   autonomous system.  Some gateway of each autonomous system must   exchange routing information with some gateway of the core autonomous   system using the Exterior Gateway Protocol.889     Mills        Dec 83      Internet Delay Experiments   This memo reports on some measurements of round-trip times in the   Internet and suggests some possible improvements to the TCP   retransmission timeout calculation.  This memo is both a status   report on the Internet and advice to TCP implementers.888     Seamonson    Jan 84      "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol   This RFC describes the Exterior Gateway Protocol used to connect Stub   Gateways to an Autonomous System of core Gateways.  This document   specifies the working protocol, and defines an ARPA official   protocol.  All implementers of Gateways should carefully review this   document.887     Accetta      Dec 83      Resource Location Protocol   This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.   It describes a resource location protocol for use in the ARPA   Internet.  It is most useful on networks employing technologies which   support some method of broadcast addressing, however it may also be   used on other types of networks.  For maximum benefit, all hosts   which provide significant resources or services to other hosts on the   Internet should implement this protocol.  Hosts failing to implement   the Resource Location Protocol risk being ignored by other hosts   which are attempting to locate resources on the Internet.886     Rose         Dec 83      Proposed Standard for Message Header                                 Munging   This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community.   It describes the rules to be used when transforming mail from the   conventions of one message system to those of another message system.   In particular, the treatment of header fields, and recipient   addresses is specified.Postel & Westine                                                [page 3]RFC 899                                                         May 1984885     Postel       Dec 83      Telnet End of Record Option   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  It   specifies a method for marking the end of records in data transmitted   on Telnet connections.884     Solomon      Dec 83      Telnet Terminal Type Option   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  It   specifies a method for exchanging terminal type information in the   Telnet protocol.883     Mockapetris  Nov 83      Domain Names - Implementation and                                 Specification   This RFC discusses the implementation of domain name servers and   resolvers, specifies the format of transactions, and discusses the   use of domain names in the context of existing mail systems and other   network software.882     Mockapetris  Nov 83      Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities   This RFC introduces domain style names, their use for ARPA Internet   mail and host address support, and the protocol and servers used to   implement domain name facilities.881     Postel       Nov 83      The Domain Names Plan and Schedule   This RFC outlines a plan and schedule for the implementation of   domain style names throughout the DDN/ARPA Internet community.  The   introduction of domain style names will impact all hosts on the   DDN/ARPA Internet.880     Reynolds     Oct 83      Official Protocols   This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols   used in the ARPA Internet.  Annotations identify any revisions or   changes planned.  Obsoletes RFC 840.879     Postel       Nov 83      The TCP Maximum Segment Size and                                 Related Topics   This RFC discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and related   topics.  The purposes is to clarify some aspects of TCP and its   interaction with IP.  This memo is a clarification to the TCP   specification, and contains information that may be considered as   "advice to implementers".Postel & Westine                                                [page 4]RFC 899                                                         May 1984878     Malis        Dec 83      The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol   This RFC specifies the ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol, which is a   successor to the existing 1822 Host Access Protocol.  The 1822L   procedure allows ARPANET hosts to use logical identifiers as well as   1822 physical interface identifiers to address each other.877     Korb         Sep 83      A Standard for the Transmission of IP                                 Datagrams Over Public Data Networks   This RFC specifies a standard adopted by CSNET, the VAN gateway, and   other organizations for the transmission of IP datagrams over the   X.25-based public data networks.876     Smallberg    Sep 83      Survey of SMTP Implementations   This RFC is a survey of implementation status.  It does not specify   an official protocol, but rather notes the status of implementation   of aspects of a protocol.  It is expected that the status of the   hosts reported on will change.  This information must be treated as a   snapshot of the state of these implemetations.875     Padlipsky    Sep 82      Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalumps   This RFC is a discussion about the role of gateways in an   internetwork, especially the problems of translating or mapping   protocols between different protocol suites.  The discussion notes   possible functionality mis-matches, undesirable routing "singularity   points", flow control issues, and high cost of translating gateways.   Originally published as M82-51 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford,   Massachusetts.874     Padlipsky    Sep 82      A Critique of X.25   This RFC is an analysis of X.25 pointing out some problems in the   conceptual model, particularly the conflict between the interface   aspects and the end-to-end aspects.  The memo also touches on   security, and implementation issues.  Originally published as M82-50   by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.873     Padlipsky    Sep 82      The Illusion of Vendor Support   This memo takes issue with the claim that international standards in   computer protocols presently provide a basis for low cost vendor   supported protocol implementations.  Originally published as M82-49   by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.Postel & Westine                                                [page 5]RFC 899                                                         May 1984872     Padlipsky    Sep 82      TCP-ON-A-LAN   This memo attacks the notion that TCP cannot be appropriate for use   on a Local Area Network.  Originally published as M82-48 by the MITRE   Corporation, Bedford Massachusetts.871     Padlipsky    Sep 82      A Perspective on the Arpanet Reference                                 Model   This RFC is primarily intended as a perspective on the ARM and points   out some of the differences between the ARM and the ISORM  which were   expressed by members in NWG general meetings, NWG protocol design   committee meetings, the ARPA Internet Working Group, and private   conversations over the intervening years.  Originally published as   M82-47 by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.870     Reynolds     Oct 83      Assigned Numbers   This RFC documents the list of numbers assigned for networks,   protocols, etc.  Obsoletes RFCs 820, 790, 776, 770, 762, 758, 755,   750, 739, 604.869     Hinden       Dec 83      A Host Monitoring Protocol   This RFC specifies the Host Monitoring Protocol used to collect   information from various types of hosts in the Internet.  Designers   of Internet communications software are encouraged to consider this   protocol as a means of monitoring the behavior of their creations.868     Postel       May 83      Time Protocol   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Time Protocol are   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  This protocol   provides a site-independent, machine readable date and time.  The   Time service sends back to the originating source the time in seconds   since midnight on January first 1900.867     Postel       May 83      Daytime Protocol   This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts   on the ARPA Internet that choose to implement a Daytime Protocol are   expected to adopt and implement this standard.  The Daytime service   simply sends the current date and time as a character string without   regard to the input.Postel & Westine                                                [page 6]

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -