IEN # 3                                                       Jon Postel
Supercedes: None                                                     ISI
Replaces: None                                            18 August 1977

                     1.4.1  INTERNET Meeting Notes
                             15 August 1977

Editors Remarks

  Here are some notes from the Internet meeting held at ISI on 15 August
  1977.  The notes are incomplete, and remarks attributed to individuals
  may be in error.


  Opening Remarks - Danny Cohen
  Meeting Objectives - Vint Cerf
  Current Internet Plans - Vint Cerf
  Issues in Internetting - Andrew Hinchley & Chris Bennett
  Gateway Monitoring - Bob Bressler
  International Standards - Vint Cerf
  X.25 Gateway Interface Experiment - Peter Kirstein
  Type of Service Issues - Danny Cohen
  Internet Mail Service - Steve Crocker
  Wrap Up - Vint Cerf
  Future Meetings - Vint Cerf

Opening Remarks - Danny Cohen

  Cohen discussed the agenda and the rules of the meeting, Danny is
  moderator and can recognize people to speak or cut people off if

Meeting Objectives - Vint Cerf

  Cerf presented the following meeting objectives:

    Review the current internet plans
    Raise and discuss internet research issues
    Compose a list of objectives of internet research
    Prepare a prioritized list of internet tasks
    Prepare a prioritized list of internet experiments

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 1]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

Current Internet Plans - Vint Cerf

  Cerf reviewed the current (FY 78) Internet Plan:

    TCP Development

      UCLA - 360/91
      MIT  - Multics
      BBN  - Tenex, Tops 20, Unix
      SRI  - LSI-11
      NDRE - NORD-10
      UCL  - PDP-9 (?)

    Network Development

      BBN     - ARPANET (gateway routing, flow control, broadcasting)
      Collins & BBN - Packet Radio Network Broadcasting
      MIT/EE  - Theory (spanning trees...)


      BBN    - Packet Radio / ARPANET
      BBN    - Packet Satellite / ARPANET
      BBN    - Gateway Control Center
      XEROX  - Packet Radio / Ethernet
      MIT    - ARPANET / LCSNET(s)
      UCL    - EPSS / ARPANET
      UCL    - EPSS / Packet Satellite
      UCL    - X.25 Net Issues
      BBN    - Gateway flow control, routing, reporting, checks and
      balances, etc.
      UCLA   - Internet performance modelling and analysis, gateway flow
      and congestion control
      MIT/EE - Relibility of internetworking, alternate routing
      ISI    - Fast network deployment, addressing, authentication

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 2]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

    Internet Performance Measurement

      UCLA - Internet Measurement Center
      UCL  - Internet Gateway traffic generation and performance

    Internet Services

      ISI - Internet Mail

    Protocol Development

      ISI - Internet Types of Service (TOS)
      ISI - Conferencing, multi-connection synchronization
      LL  - Packet Satellite / internet speech [NDRE, UCL, LL, BBN,
      SRI - Impact of TOS on Packet Radio
      ISI - Protocol Modelling and Testing/Evaluation System

  Cerf: We need a specification for a gateway so that other
  inplementations will come out the same.

  Cerf reviews related working groups:

    TCP working group ( V. Cerf - ARPA) focuses on TCP as an end to end
    protocol in an internet environment, technical orentation.

    Packet Radio working group (D. Neilson - SRI)

    Packet Satellite working group (I. Jacobs - Linkabit)

    Internet working group (D. Cohen - ISI) focuses on network
    interconnection problems and plans internetwork experiments.

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 3]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  Cerf reviews the "number czars" for various note series etc:

    PSPWNs - Lin-Nan Lee (Linkabit) [JACOBS@ISIE]
    PRTNs  - Ron Kunzelman (SRI) [PRSETD@ISIC]
    IENs   - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]
    Network Identifiers - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]
    Internet Messages Types - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]

  Cerf reviews the forecast of events in interneting:

    TCP Development

      Sep 77 - Experimental small-machine Top20 TCP
      Oct 77 - Unix TCP
      Nov 77 - Operational small-machine Tops20 TCP
      Dec 77 - Nord 10 TCP
      Jan 78 - Tenex TCP
      May 78 - large-machine Tops20 TCP
      Jul 78 - 360/91 TCP

    Network Development

      Sep 77 - 2 node PR test cell in Boston
      Jan 78 - LCS Net
      Jun 78 - PR Net Broadcast
      Dec 78 - ARPANET Broadcast


      Oct 77 - Ethernet/PR net
      Dec 77 - Gateway monitoring center
      Jan 78 - LCSNet/ARPANET
      Jan 78 - X.25 Epss interface / SATNET
      Apr 78 - Gateway flowcontrol, routing etc specification
      Oct 78 - Gateway flow control, routing, etc. Pass 1 implemented
      Jan 79 - PR Net in Army C2 test bed

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 4]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

    Performance Measurements

      May 78 - SATNET/ARPANET/EPSS/PRNET performance tests (UCL)
      Oct 78 - Internet Measurement Center (UCLA)
      Jan 79 - Internet performance tests
      Mar 79 - Rapid deployment tests

    Protocol Development

      Sep 77 - TCP 2.5 specification
      Jan 78 - Unix telnet
      Mar 78 - Tenex & Tops20 Telnet
      Apr 78 - Draft TOS Specification
      May 78 - Prototype FAX specification from UCL
      Jul 78 - Prototype internet mail service
      Aug 78 - Tenex & Tops20 FTP
      Sep 78 - Internet speech conferencing specification
      Oct 78 - 360/91 telnet & ftp
      Mar 79 - Internet speech conferencing tests
      Jun 79 - Speech & Video conferencing specification


      Sep 77 - Point to point raw internet speech demo
      May 79 - Internet services demo

  Cerf: We need a specification of how a gateway should behave to
  cooperate with a gateway control center.

  Kirstein: EPSS and SATNET will have X.25 interfaces but there is no
  plan for an X.25 interface to the ARPANET.

  Cerf: The issue of secure internetting is postponed.

  Cerf: There is consideration of an effort to develop a new ftp, but
  there is no plan as yet.

  Kirstein: FAX might be worked into the speech and video conferencing

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 5]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  Kirstein:  Are LLL or Commercial nets to be involved in internet

  Cerf: LLL is interested in TCP for the local to Livermore Octopus net
  not the CTR net.

  Cerf: No current plans to get commerical nets involved.

  Kirstein: What is happening about AUTODIN II and ARPANET as described
  at TCP Meeting?

  Cerf: That plan is no longer active, and it is not expected that there
  will be any move to get people off the ARPANET until 1980, after that
  AUTODIN II service may be offered instead of ARPANET on a customer by
  customer basis.

  Kirstein: It seems more likely that university type users will have to
  go to a commerical net than get on AUTODIN II, so shouldn't we be
  exploring internetting with commercial nets now?

Issues in Internetting - Andrew Hinchley & Chris Bennett

  Hinchley & Bennett discussed the paper (PSPWN 76, INDRA 637) "Issues
  in the Interconnection of Datagram Networks" that was distributed
  prior to the meeting.

  Hinchley: there are three catagories of interconnections:

    1) ARPA like datagram networks,

    2) PTTs X.25 networks, note that the PTTs are moving very fast with
    a model of an internetwork system composed of a small number of very
    large national networks,

    3) Interconnection of private networks via public X.25 networks.

    The SATNET experience is the basis for these (PSPWN 76) comments.

  Cerf: Is a gateway a piece of hardware physically connected to two or

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 6]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  more networks, or is it pair(s) of software modules connected by
  physically complicated networks ?

  Kirstein: We should be more aware of what is going to be possible with
  PTT provided "virtual call networks".

  Bennett: Addressing is a topic discussed in the memo.

  Cerf: Up to now we have not had names for gateways, but now we may
  need names if gateway control centers are to communicate directly with

  Cerf and Crocker discuss gateway models, one point was that one should
  try a model with a three or more connected gateways since sometimes a
  two connected model may make things seem simpler than they really are,
  another point is that a gateway is a kind of a forwarder, and Crocker
  argues that the forwarder is logically a network.

  Postel: An address is just a string of bits, with each address parser
  consuming part of the string, to give a gateway an address reserve one
  value of the set of values representable in the bits the gateway
  parses, that reserved value means "here".

  Kirstein expressed concern about the address space in the individual
  networks.  Also concerned about translations necessary when going
  between datagram and virtual call networks.

  Cerf: Does the way a thing is named specify the way one gets to it?
  Especially if a thing is multi-hommed?

  Shoch: One way is all gates are in the same net and have exactly one
  address. Another way is that a gateway has distinct host address on
  each net it is connected to.

  Cerf: If the gateway control center has to talk to the gateway and the
  gateway has two names, which name does the control center use?

  Shoch: Someone has to take responsibility for choosing.

  Jacobs: Where do the global unique names come from?

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 7]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  Postel: They are external. We always have a unique description,
  usually by location, for objects. The gateway control center will have
  to have for each gateway a unique (external) name, and associated with
  that a list of internal addresses.

  Cerf designates that there be a committee to study addressing and
  naming of gateways to (1) figure out what things there are, and (2)
  figure out how to address them.  Crocker is chairman.

  Bennett: Routing in the Internet is discussed in PSPWN 76.  The main
  ideas are that adaptive routing in internet is not likely to be much
  good due to the larger delays in information propagation.  Fixed
  routing with a number of alternatives (this is also called "Explicit
  Path Routing") might be useful. [Naylor says this is explored by IBM
  Zurich.] Could use alternate routing in a event driven form to recover
  from service outages. One issue is what to base the adaptation on.

  Postel: Most of the things normally used could get washed out by local

  Crocker: Perhaps there are some things...

  Postel: for example queue lengths in the gateways.

  Cerf: Adaptive routing is not a substitute for congestion control.

  Jacobs: The information available to a gateway includs both facts
  about its directly attached networks and information received from
  other gateways.

  Cerf: Gatways may have to exchange information about what paths are
  viable. If one packet from a gateway to a host in the ARPANET results
  in a "host dead" error what does the gateway do about other packets to
  the ARPANET? We should avoid having a lot of state information in the

  Postel: What happens when the ARPANET says to a gateway "host dead"?

  Jacobs: Nothing.

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 8]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  Cerf: Try to pass an error message back to source TCP. We have no
  conventions for this as yet.

  Mathis: Out thinking has been: Gateways do routing; TCPs do not do

  Cohen: Routing algorithms need to be smarter.

  Hinchley: Flow Control Possibilities

    1) No control at gateway level (expect end-to-end control to take
    care of any problems)

    2) Gatway to Gateway control

    3) Terminating Gateway Control (source - desination  gateways
    control flow)

    4) X7X virtual circuit control

    This is a range of possibilities.

  Postel favors a hop by hop (that is gate by gate) flow control.

  Cohen: Why should there be a single type of flow control? The type of
  service (drops, streams, floods) should get different kinds of flow

  Jacobs: In SATNET there are a whole rage of stratagies from try once
  to try very hard to get a message through.

  There occured at this point a discussion of the cost of hop by hop

  Jacobs: This should all be in terms of bump to bump, that is  a
  gateway consist of a bump for each connected network and a core, any
  network is between a pair of bumps, and the bumps should decide how
  much error control etc is needed across that network.

  There was a discussion of status information, particularly error

Section 1.4.1                                                   [page 9]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  reports. If a gateway  has a problem then it is an internet error and
  "the internet" ought to tell the source about it. If a destination
  host has a problem then a service center could know the problem and a
  query  to the services center could tell the source what is happening.

  Hinchley: Gateway Control, Once gateways get above a certain level of
  complexity there needs to be a control function, that suggest that the
  reshould be a gateway control language which is standard throught the

Gateway Monitoring - Bob Bressler

  Bressler described the current gateway monitoring center as a fairly
  simple program that summarized reports from the SIMP and some other
  gateway. The information reported was:

    number of messages sent and received on each port of each gateway
    and the number of messages dropped by the gateway

  The gateways spontaneously generate the reports to the control center,
  the control center curently sends no messages to the gateways.  There
  are data generators and data sinks in the gateways now controled by
  XNET a ddt like cross net debugger.

  Kirstein: One of the simplest services one could provide is reliable
  delivery but allow duplicates to be delivered as well.

  Hinchley: What common functions can be listed?

    run a diagnostic
    update routing information

  Shoch: Gateways exchange routing tables perodically gratuitously. Many
  processes in a gateway for example time server, name lookup server,
  boot loaders, measurement process, echo server, source, sink, trace.

  Shoch: There is a distinction between Routing, Addressing, and Naming.

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 10]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

  Kirstein: There will need to be several monitoring centers. There may
  be a central control center that forwards suggestion for control to
  national control centers.

  Burchfiel: No gateway in the ARPANET currently does fragmentation.

International Standards - Vint Cerf

  Cerf reviews international standards organizations:

    ITU - International Telecommunications Union (established by treaty)
      CCIR - International Radio Consultative Committee (issues
      recommendations on the use of electromagnetic spectrum)
      CCITT - International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
      Committee (issues recommendations on telephone and telegraph
        PTTs - Government operated Post, Telephone & Telegraph Systems
        ATT - American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
        IFIP - International Federation for Information Processing
        ANSI - American National Standards Institute
          cats & dogs
          common carriers
          EIA - Electronic Industry Association
            NBS - National Bureau of Standards
            DCA - Defense Communications Agency
    ISO - International Standards Organization
    CEPT -

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 11]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

    ECMA - European Computer Manufacturers Association

  Cerf reviews relevent standards activity:


      V.24 (CCITT recomendation) = RS232C (EIA)


      X.21 <-> RS232C

      HDLC (ISO) <-> [SDLC (IBM), UDLC (Univac), ADCCP (ANSI)]

      X.25 packet network interface, virtual call, asymetric

      X.C PAD control

      X.7X packet net / packet net interface (virtual circuit)

X.25 Gateway Interface Experiment - Peter Kirstein

  Kirstein discussed the work UCL is going to be doing with EPSS and
  X.25 interfaces.

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 12]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

Type of Service Issues - Danny Cohen

  Cohen discussed Type of Service issues. He suggests the following
  dimensions to service selection:

    Floods / Streams / Drops
    Sort Messages
    Acknowledgement / Negative acknowledgement/ No acknowledgement
    Multidestination addressing
    End of Letter
      Buffer Runout
      Receiver Wakeup

  Cohen: Whether ACK or NACK or both or neither are used should depend
  on statistics.

  Jacobs: The Host-SIMP protocol paper may be relevant.

  Hoversten: Is the user helping the network by telling it what type of
  demands the user is going to make?

Internet Mail Service - Steve Crocker

  Crocker discussed a model of how to make mail services available in
  the internet system in a straightforward way.  Also of interest is
  possibility for authentication and privacy.

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 13]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes

Wrap Up - Vint Cerf

  Binders for an Internet Notebook were distributed, and Cerf explaind
  the intention to use it to collect the current information for
  internet experements.  Jon Postel is the Notebook coordinator.

  Cerf summarized as follows:

    Addressing alternatives need to be written down - assigned Steve
    Crocker to coordinate. Please supply him with your thoughts.  What
    objects exist and what names should they have.  John Shoch will
    provide a one page note on nomenclature.  A Gateway Specification is
    to be prepared by Bob Bressler.  Cerf will distribute a current
    version of the X.25 specification.  Kirstein will distribute a
    document on the UCL X.25 experiments.

Future Meetings - Vint Cerf

  Cerf reviewed the plans for future meetings:

       15 Aug 77 - Internet meeting at ISI
    17-19 Aug 77 - PSPWG    meeting at Linkabit
    13-14 Oct 77 - TCP      meeting at SRI
    31Oct-2Nov77 - PSPWG    meeting at BBN
        3 Nov 77 - Internet meeting at BBN
    30-31 Jan 78 - TCP      meeting at ISI
     1- 2 Feb 78 - PSPWG    meeting at UCLA
        3 Feb 78 - Internet meeting at UCLA
    20-21 Apr 78 - TCP      meeting at BBN
     1- 2 May 78 - Internet meeting at UCL
     3- 5 May 78 - PSPWG    meeting at UCL
    13-14 Jul 78 - TCP      meeting at PARC
     2- 3 Aug 78 - Internet meeting at LL
        4 Aug 78 - PSPWG    meeting at LL
    12-13 Oct 78 - TCP      meeting at LCS
     2- 3 Nov 78 - Internet meeting at SRI

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 14]

                                                               18 Aug 77
IEN # 3                                           INTERNET Meeting Notes


  Chris Bennett      UCL          UKSAT@ISIE      (01)387-7059
  Bob Bressler       BBN          BRESSLER@BBN    (617)491-1850
  Jerry Burchfiel    BBN          BURCHFIEL@BBNA  (617)491-1850
  Vint Cerf          ARPA         CERF@ISI        (202)694-3049
  Danny Cohen        ISI          COHEN@ISIB      (213)822-1511
  Steve Crocker      ISI          CROCKER@ISI     (213)822-1511
  Jin Forgie         MIT-LL       FORGIE@BBN      (617)862-5500x7191
  Andrew Hinchley    UCL          UKSAT@ISIE      (01)387-7050x817
  Estil Hoversten    COMSAT       HOVERSTEN@ISI   (202)554-6092
  Irwin Mark Jacobs  LINKABIT     JACOBS@ISIE     (714)453-7007
  Peter Kirstein     UCL          KIRSTEIN@ISI    (01)387-7050
  Ron Kunzelman      SRI          KUNZELMAN@ISIC  (415)326-6200x4118
  Jim Mathis         SRI          MATHIS@SRI-KL   (415)326-6200x5150
  Bill Naylor        UCLA         NAYLOR@ISI      (213)825-4864
  Jon Postel         ISI          POSTEL@ISIB     (213)822-1511
  John Shoch         XEROX-PARC   SHOCH@PARC      (415)494-4000
  Paal Spilling      NDRE         PAAL@SRI-KA
  Dan Wilhelm        SAMSO        SAMSO@ISI       (213)643-0131

Section 1.4.1                                                  [page 15]