Network meeting
Notes on topics discussed at an October 1969 ARPANET meeting.
Cerf, V.G., "Network meeting", RFC 21, DOI 10.17487/RFC0021, October 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc21>.
@misc{rfc21,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 21,
howpublished = {RFC 21},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0021},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc21},
author = {V.G. Cerf},
title = {{Network meeting}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1969,
month = oct,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group V. Cerf
Request for Comments: 21 UCLA
October 17, 1969
At UCLA on October 10, there was a network meeting attended by:
SDC UCLA
John Kreznar Vint Cerf
Dick Linde Steve Crocker
Marty Bleier Jon Postel
Bob Long Michel Elie
UCSB
Ron Stoughton
Nancy O'Hara
George Gregg
Topics discussed:
1. Revisions to BBN memo 1822
2. Revisions to NWG/RFC 11
3. Transmission of multiple control messages
1. Changes to BBN Memo No. 1822 (underlined)
As informally communicated by Dave Wa
p. 11 "The IMP program can handle up to 63 active transmit links
and 63 active receive links at a time. If the Host attempts to
send a message on a new link when 63 active transmit links already
exist, a "Link Table Full" message will be sent from the IMP to
the Host, and the message will be discarded."
p. 11 "1. Any link that is not used for a period of 26 seconds
will have its entry automatically deleted by the IMP program."
[Cerf: How about deleting only if the transmit link table is full?
Crocker: No, because there is no other way for links to be deleted
so they would always tend to accumulate. Furthermore,
the table at one site may be full while another site may
not be.]
p. 13 "5 Regular with discard."
This allows IMP systems to generate traffic which never actually
reaches any Hosts since it will be discarded when it reaches the
top of the IMP-HOST queue in the destination Host's IMP. The
Network Measurement Center will make use of this feature.
p. 13 Message type 6 is no longer assigned, and message type 10
is really in octal so is actually type 8. Types 9-15 are unassigned.
p. 17 Type 10 is really type 8.
2. Revisions to NWG/RFC 11
This memo has been obsoleted by developments at UCLA and
discussions with other nodes. NWG/RFC 22 contains some of the
major changes. An updated version of NWG/RFC 11 is forthcoming.
3. George Gregg of UCSB will publish NWG/RFC 23 concerning the
transmission of multiple control messages over control links.
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Meeting Topics and Participants
The note says a network meeting was held at UCLA on 10 October. Participants came from SDC, UCLA and UCSB.
The listed topics were revisions to BBN Memo 1822, revisions to NWG/RFC 11 and transmission of multiple control messages.
People from three ARPANET sites met to discuss network documents and control messages. RFC 21 records the main topics, not a full transcript.
§2Revisions to RFC 11
The note says RFC 11 had been overtaken by developments at UCLA and discussions with other network nodes. It identifies RFC 22 as containing some of the major changes and says an updated version of RFC 11 was forthcoming.
The participants noted that work had moved beyond RFC 11. The note points to RFC 22 for some major changes and says a revised version was expected.
§3Multiple Control Messages
The final topic is transmission of multiple control messages. The note says George Gregg of UCSB would publish RFC 23 on sending multiple control messages over control links.
RFC 21 reports this planned work but does not define the message format or transmission procedure itself.
The meeting raised the topic of sending several control messages over control links. A separate RFC was planned to address it.