📄 rfc757.txt
字号:
something about who issued it. A simple system for determiningthe address for any ID can be maintained by having the issuingnetwork keep a pointer for each ID it issues. One doubleindirection would yield the desired address, even if the ID werenot issued on the local nets. A message originating on the localnets with an ID which is unknown to its database can be handledby determining the birthplace of the ID. An inquiry to thebirthplace database would return a list of one or more networkson which the ID is registered. An inquiry to any of those wouldget the requisite information. All that is necessary to supportthis is for the birthplace record (small enough!) to be kept,and for the act of registration at a given net to automaticallycause that net to notify the birthplace of the registration.(Conversely, a de-registration would cause a similar notificationof the birthplace.)5.1.1 ID resolution The handling of ID resolution when the ID is not known to thelocal net does not seem to have a solution simpler than queryingforeign nets until some success is achieved.5.1.2 Hosts in an internet environment The substitution of internet host names for simple host namesshould not cause any difficulty.RFC 757 September 1979Implications of an internetwork message environment Page 145.1.3 Orphans Should a birthplace cease to exist (usually because its networkis dismantled), it would be necessary for a second birthplace to"adopt" the first birthplace's records. Notification of thischange could be propagated throughout the internet environment inmuch the same way as the addition of a new birthplace would betreated.RFC 757 September 1979Conclusions Page 156. Conclusions While ARPAnet message systems have been amazingly successful,there is much room for improvement in the quality and quantity ofthe services offered. Current protocols are limiting thedevelopment of new message systems. This paper has discussed ameans of providing the underlying support necessary for buildinga new generation of message systems which can be betterhuman-engineered in addition to providing more services andgreater reliability. Critics may argue that the proposal is too radical, too much ofa departure from current practice. After all, today's messageservice is extremely straightforward in design, and therefore hascomparatively few failure modes. The protocols in use havedescended, with relatively few changes, from the first filetransfer and message format protocols implemented on the ARPAnet.This makes them well understood; people are aware of both theirshortcomings and usage. Finally, there are people who will notfeel comfortable about requiring a network database, distrustingthe reliability and questioning the possible cost of such ascheme. On the other hand, it is undeniably true that very little morecan be done to improve message services while staying withintoday's practices. New message systems which will be able totransmit facsimile, voice, and other media along with textrequire us to rethink message formats and do away with deliveryprotocols which are predicated upon the characteristics of ASCIItext. The inception of internetwork message delivery causes usto re-evaluate how we handle messages locally. Finally, theUSERNAME@HOST naming scheme has proved to be inadequate, whilethe divorce of recipients' identities from their locations seemsa promising possibility as a replacement. The ARPAnet will soon have a distributed database forsupporting TIP Login. Only small, incremental costs would beassociated with building and maintaining a netmail database atthe same time. It can be argued that TIP Login requires at leastthe level of reliability required by a message delivery system.If the TIP Login database is successful, a netmail database canwork, too. It is clear that we will be implementing a new set of messageformat and delivery protocols in the near future, in order toallow for multi-media messages, internetwork message traffic, andthe like. New message composition and delivery systems will bebuilt to meet those specifications and take advantage of theavenues of development which they will open. If there will everbe an advantageous time to re-evaluate and re-design how messagesare addressed and delivered, it is now, when we are about toenter upon an entirely new cycle of message composition andRFC 757 September 1979Conclusions Page 16delivery program implementation.RFC 757 September 1979References Page 17 REFERENCES[1] John F. Shoch. Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing. In Proceedings, COMPCON. IEEE Computer Society, Fall, 1979.[2] Stephen Warshall. On Names and Permissions. Mass. Computer Associates. 1979.[3] David H. Crocker, John J. Vittal, Kenneth T. Pogran, D. Austin Henderson, Jr. STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA NETWORK TEXT MESSAGES. RFC 733, The Rand Corporation, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc, Massachussets Institute of Technology, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., November, 1977.[4] Jonathan B. Postel. INTERNET MESSAGE PROTOCOL. RFC 753, Information Sciences Institute, March, 1979.[5] Robert H. Thomas, Paul J. Santos, and John F. Haverty. TIP Login Notes. Bolt Beranek and Newman. 1979.RFC 757 September 1979Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents1. Introduction 22. Names and Addresses 32.1 A distributed database approach 42.2 Delivery 5 2.2.1 Additional delivery options 7 2.2.2 Failures 83. Relationship to TIP Login database 94. Relationship to RFC 753 104.1 Compatibility 10 4.1.1 Outgoing message 10 4.1.1.1 RFC 753 10 4.1.1.2 This proposal 11 4.1.2 Messages in transit 12 4.1.3 Incoming mail 125. Implications of an internetwork message environment 135.1 Birthplaces 13 5.1.1 ID resolution 13 5.1.2 Hosts in an internet environment 13 5.1.3 Orphans 146. Conclusions 15RFC 757 September 1979List of Figures Page ii List of FiguresFigure 4-1: The Internet Environment 10RFC 757 September 1979
⌨️ 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 + -