Index Journeys
RFC 73 UNKNOWN META · PROTOCOL · IMPLEMENTATION

Response to NWG/RFC 67

A response recommending implementation before nonessential protocol changes.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
September 1970
AUTHORS
S.D. Crocker
STREAM
Legacy
DOI
10.17487/RFC0073

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗ 
Network Working Group                                   S. Crocker
Request for Comments #73                                UCLA
                                                        25 Sept. 70

                        Response to NWM/RFC #67

Bill's suggestion is a good one; however, my current policy is to
encourage the most rapid implementation of the protocol in document
#1, and his suggested modification should be delayed.  It seems to me
most important to gain experience using the network before making
changes to the protocol which are not dictated by necessity.  (I
polled several sites regarding Bill's suggestion.  Sites with NCP
implementations under way tended to agree with this policy, while
sites further behind tended to desire Bill's suggested change.)

With respect to changes, in general, I believe that changes are
necessary to improve the efficiency, provide greater flexibility, and
guarantee reliability.  Many of us can suggest changes now, but I
suspect that clearer ideas will emerge from usage.

       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
         [ into the online RFC archives by Josh Elliott 1/98 ]

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMA suggested protocol modification was under discussion while sites were beginning to implement the existing protocol.
MECHANISMSteve Crocker supports delaying the suggestion unless necessity requires it, so sites can implement the protocol and gain experience using the network.
RESPONSEThe note records a policy view and the results of a poll of several sites; it does not record a formal decision.

§1Delay Changes Not Required by Necessity

Steve Crocker calls the suggestion in RFC 67 a good one but says he would delay it. His current policy is to encourage the most rapid implementation of the protocol in document 1.

He argues that the group should gain experience using the network before making changes that are not required by necessity.

The author considers the suggested change reasonable, but recommends waiting unless it is necessary. He wants sites to build and use the existing protocol first.

§1Views from Network Sites

Crocker says he polled several sites about the suggestion. Sites with NCP implementations underway tended to agree with delaying the change, while sites that were further behind tended to want the suggested change.

The note reports these views but does not say that the poll produced a binding decision.

Sites already implementing the NCP tended to favor waiting. Sites further behind tended to favor the proposed change.

§1Improvements After Use

The author says changes will be needed to improve efficiency, flexibility and reliability. He expects clearer ideas about those changes to emerge from using the network.

The author expects the protocol to need improvements. He thinks actual use will help the group identify them more clearly.