分享
 
 
 

RFC1160 - Internet Activities Board

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group V. Cerf

Request for Comments: 1160 NRI

Obsoletes: RFC1120 May 1990

The Internet Activities Board

Status of this Memo

This RFCprovides a history and description of the Internet

Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations. This memo

is for informational use and does not constitute a standard. This is

a revision of RFC1120. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

1. IntrodUCtion

In 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

initiated an effort to develop a technology which is now known as

packet switching. This technology had its roots in message switching

methods, but was strongly influenced by the development of low-cost

minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during the

mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78]. A very

useful survey of this technology can be found in [IEEE 78].

During the early 1970's, DARPA initiated a number of programs to

eXPlore the use of packet switching methods in alternative media

including mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78]. Concurrently,

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) began an exploration of packet

switching on coaxial cable which ultimately led to the development of

Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76].

The successful implementation of packet radio and packet satellite

technology raised the question of interconnecting ARPANET with other

types of packet nets. A possible solution to this problem was

proposed by Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] in the form of an internetwork

protocol and a set of gateways to connect the different networks.

This solution was further developed as part of a research program in

internetting sponsored by DARPA and resulted in a collection of

computer communications protocols based on the original Transmission

Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower level counterpart, Internet

Protocol (IP). Together, these protocols, along with many others

developed during the course of the research, are referred to as the

TCP/IP Protocol Suite [RFC1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK

86].

In the early stages of the Internet research program, only a few

researchers worked to develop and test versions of the internet

protocols. Over time, the size of this activity increased until, in

1979, it was necessary to form an informal committee to guide the

technical evolution of the protocol suite. This group was called the

Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) and was established by

Dr. Vinton Cerf who was then the DARPA program manager for the

effort. Dr. David C. Clark of the Laboratory for Computer Science at

Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named the chairman of this

committee.

In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency, then responsible

for the operation of the ARPANET, declared the TCP/IP protocol suite

to be standard for the ARPANET and all systems on the network

converted from the earlier Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP.

Late that year, the ICCB was reorganized by Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf's

successor at DARPA, around a series of task forces considering

different technical ASPects of internetting. The re-organized group

was named the Internet Activities Board.

As the Internet expanded, it drew support from U.S. Government

organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF),

the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). Key managers in these organizations,

responsible for computer networking research and development, formed

an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC)

to coordinate U.S. Government support for and development and use of

the Internet system. The FRICC sponsored most of the U.S. research

on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board

and its subsidiary organizations.

In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a larger initiative

sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal Coordinating

Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET). The

reorganization created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and its

Working Groups. The membership of the FNC included all the former

FRICC members and many other U.S. Government representatives. The

first chairman of the FNC is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the National

Science Foundation. The FNC is the Federal Government's body for

coordinating the agencies that support the Internet. It provides

liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by the

President's Science Advisor) which is responsible for setting science

and technology policy affecting the Internet. It endorses and

employs the existing planning and operational activities of the

community-based bodies that have grown up to manage the Internet in

the United States. The FNC plans to involve user and supplier

communities through creation of an external advisory board and will

coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives ranging

from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to educational

applications. The FNC has also participated in planning for the

creation of a National Research and Education Network in the United

States.

At the international level, a Coordinating Committee for

Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed which

includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America and

Europe. Co-chaired by the executive Directors of the FNC and the

European Association of Research Networks (RARE), the CCIRN provides

a forum for cooperative planning among the principal North American

and European research networking bodies.

2. Internet Activities Board

The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee for

Internet design, engineering and management. The Internet is a

collection of over two thousand of packet switched networks located

principally in the U.S., but also in many other parts of the world,

all interlinked and operating using the protocols of the TCP/IP

protocol suite. The IAB is an independent committee of researchers

and professionals with a technical interest in the health and

evolution of the Internet system. Membership changes with time to

adjust to the current realities of the research interests of the

participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns of

constituent members of the Internet.

IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet function

effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future. New

members are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice and

consent of the remaining members. The chairman serves a term of two

years and is elected by the members of the IAB. The IAB focuses on

the TCP/IP protocol suite, and extensions to the Internet system to

support multiple protocol suites.

The IAB has two principal subsidiary task forces:

1) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

2) Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)

Each of these Task Forces is led by a chairman and guided by a

Steering Group which reports to the IAB through its chairman. Each

task force is organized, by the chairman, as required, to carry out

its charter. For the most part, a collection of Working Groups

carries out the work program of each Task Force.

All decisions of the IAB are made public. The principal vehicle by

which IAB decisions are propagated to the parties interested in the

Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for Comment

(RFC) note series. The archival RFCseries was initiated in 1969 by

Dr. Stephen D. Crocker as a means of documenting the development of

the original ARPANET protocol suite [RFC1000]. The editor-in-chief

of this series, Dr. Jonathan B. Postel, has maintained the quality of

and managed the archiving of this series since its inception. A

small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards. Most of

them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion. The small

number which document standards are especially marked in a "status"

section to indicate the special status of the document. An RFC

summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published regularly

[RFC1140].

RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions

whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly to

the RFCeditor. A Standard Protocol starts out as a Proposed

Standard and may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally Standard

after suitable review, comment, implementation and testing.

Prior to publication of a Proposed Standard RFC, it is made available

for comment through an on-line Internet-Draft directory. Typically,

these Internet-Drafts are working documents of the IAB or of the

working groups of the Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces.

Internet-Drafts are either submitted to the RFCeditor for

publication or discarded within 3-6 months. Prior to promotion to

Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and review

cycle may be initiated if significant changes to the RFCare

contemplated.

The IAB performs the following functions:

1) Sets Internet Standards,

2) Manages the RFCpublication process,

3) Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,

4) Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying

long-range problems and opportunities,

5) Acts as an international technical policy liaison and

representative for the Internet community, and

6) Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within

the IETF or IRTF frameworks.

To supplement its work via electronic mail, the IAB meets quarterly

to review the condition of the Internet, to review and approve

proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols, to

set technical development priorities, to discuss policy matters which

may need the attention of the Internet sponsors, and to agree on the

addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition or

retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB. Typically, two of

the quarterly meetings are by means of video teleconferencing

(provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet packet

video-conferencing system). The minutes of the IAB meetings are

published in the Internet Monthly on-line report.

The IAB membership is currently as follows:

Vinton Cerf/CNRI Chairman

Robert Braden/USC-ISI Executive Director

David Clark/MIT-LCS IRTF Chairman

Phillip Gross/CNRI IETF Chairman

Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI RFCEditor

Hans-Werner Braun/Merit Member

Lyman Chapin/DG Member

Stephen Kent/BBN Member

Anthony Lauck/Digital Member

Barry Leiner/RIACS Member

Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc. Member

3. The Internet Engineering Task Force

The Internet has grown to encompass a large number of widely

geographically dispersed networks in academic and research

communities. It now provides an infrastructure for a broad community

with various interests. Moreover, the family of Internet protocols

and system components has moved from experimental to commercial

development. To help coordinate the operation, management and

evolution of the Internet, the IAB established the Internet

Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF is chaired by Mr. Phillip

Gross and managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

The IAB has delegated to the IESG the general responsibility for

making the Internet work and for the resolution of all short- and

mid-range protocol and architectural issues required to make the

Internet function effectively.

The charter of the IETF includes:

1) Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-term

Internet protocols and architecture and recommending

standards for IAB approval.

2) Provision of a forum for the exchange of information within

the Internet community.

3) Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-range

operational and technical problem areas and convening of

Working Groups to explore solutions.

The Internet Engineering Task Force is a large open community of

network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with

the Internet and the Internet protocol suite. It is organized around

a set of eight technical areas, each managed by a technical area

director. In addition to the IETF Chairman, the area directors make

up the IESG membership. Each area director has primary

responsibility for one area of Internet engineering activity, and

hence for a subset of the IETF Working Groups. The area directors

have jobs of critical importance and difficulty and are selected not

only for their technical expertise but also for their managerial

skills and judgment. At present, the eight technical areas and

chairs are:

1) Applications - Russ Hobby/UC-Davis

2) Host and User Services - Craig Partridge/BBN

3) Internet Services - Noel Chiappa/Consultant

4) Routing - Robert Hinden/BBN

5) Network Management - David Crocker/DEC

6) OSI Integration - Ross Callon/DEC and

Robert Hagens/UWisc.

7) Operations - Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting)

8) Security - Steve Crocker/TIS

The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as Working

Groups. There are currently more than 40 of these. Working Groups

tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of a

specific task, although there are exceptions. The IETF is a major

source of proposed protocol standards, for final approval by the IAB.

The IETF meets quarterly and extensive minutes of the plenary

proceedings as well as reports from each of the working groups are

issued by the IAB Secretariat at the Corporation for National

Research Initiatives.

4. The Internet Research Task Force

To promote research in networking and the development of new

technology, the IAB established the Internet Research Task Force

(IRTF).

In the area of network protocols, the distinction between research

and engineering is not always clear, so there will sometimes be

overlap between activities of the IETF and the IRTF. There is, in

fact, considerable overlap in membership between the two groups.

This overlap is regarded as vital for cross-fertilization and

technology transfer. In general, the distinction between research

and engineering is one of viewpoint and sometimes (but not always)

time-frame. The IRTF is generally more concerned with understanding

than with products or standard protocols, although specific

experimental protocols may have to be developed, implemented and

tested in order to gain understanding.

The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with an

Internet focus. The work of the IRTF is governed by its Internet

Research Steering Group (IRSG). The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG is

David Clark. The IRTF is organized into a number of Research Groups

(RGs) whose chairs of these are appointed by the chairman of the

IRSG. The RG chairs and others selected by the IRSG chairman serve on

the IRSG. These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and each

covers a broad area of research, pursuing specific topics, determined

at least in part by the interests of the members and by

recommendations of the IAB.

The current members of the IRSG are as follows:

David Clark/MIT LCS - Chairman

Robert Braden/USC-ISI - End-to-End Services

Douglas Comer/PURDUE - Member-at-Large

Deborah Estrin/USC - Autonomous Networks

Stephen Kent/BBN - Privacy and Security

Keith Lantz/Consultant - Collaboration Technology

David Mills/UDEL - Member-at-Large

5. The Near-term Agenda of the IAB

There are seven principal foci of IAB attention for the period 1989 -

1990:

1) Operational Stability

2) User Services

3) OSI Coexistence

4) Testbed Facilities

5) Security

6) Getting Big

7) Getting Fast

Operational stability of the Internet is a critical concern for all

of its users. Better tools are needed for gathering operational

data, to assist in fault isolation at all levels and to analyze the

performance of the system. Opportunities abound for increased

cooperation among the operators of the various Internet components

[RFC1109]. Specific, known problems should be dealt with, such as

implementation deficiencies in some versions of the BIND domain name

service resolver software. To the extent that the existing Exterior

Gateway Protocol (EGP) is only able to support limited topologies,

constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths should

be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System routing

protocol can be specified. Flexiblity for Internet implementation

would be enhanced by the adoption of a common internal gateway

routing protocol by all vendors of internet routers. A major effort

is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements RFCs

which were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989.

Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (electronic

mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing. Efforts should

be focused on widespread deployment of these capabilities in the

Internet by mid-1990. The IAB recommends that existing white pages

facilities and newer ones, such as X.500, be populated with up-to-

date user information and made Accessible to Internet users and users

of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to the

Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail carriers

should be vigorously pursued, as well as links to other network

research communities in Europe and the rest of the world.

Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic mail

software should be accelerated in 1990 after release of public domain

software implementing the private electronic mail standards [RFC

1113, RFC1114 and RFC1115]. Finally, support for new or enhanced

applications such as computer-based conferencing, multi-media

messaging and collaboration support systems should be developed.

The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the FRICC

should be applied to support conferencing and collaboration protocol

development and application experiments and to support multi-vendor

router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing,

network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding).

With respect to growth in the Internet, architectural attention

should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions of

users and hundreds of thousands of networks. The naming, addressing,

routing and navigation problems occasioned by such growth should be

analyzed. Similarly, research should be carried out on analyzing the

limits to the existing Internet architecture, including the ability

of the present protocol suite to cope with speeds in the gigabit

range and latencies varying from microseconds to seconds in duration.

The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI protocols

by the end of 1990 or sooner, if possible. Provision for multi-

protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is one

important goal. Introduction of X.400 electronic mail services and

interoperation with RFC822/SMTP [RFC822, RFC821, RFC987, RFC

1026, and RFC1148] should be targeted for 1990 as well. These

efforts will need to work in conjunction with the White Pages

services mentioned above. The IETF, in particular, should establish

liaison with various OSI working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE, Network

Management Forum) to coordinate planning for OSI introduction into

the Internet and to facilitate registration of information pertinent

to the Internet with the various authorities responsible for OSI

standards in the United States.

Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be made

to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host managers

concerning configuration management, known security problems (and

their solutions) and software and technologies available to provide

enhanced security and privacy to the users of the Internet.

REFERENCES

[BARAN 64] Baran, P., et al, "On Distributed Communications",

Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August 1964.

[CERF 74] Cerf V., and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network

Interconnection", IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-22,

No. 5, pp. 637-648, May 1974.

[CERF 82] Cerf V., and E. Cain, "The DoD Internet Protocol

Architecture", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology Center

Symposium on Interoperability of Automated Data Systems,

November 1982. Also in Computer Networks and ISDN,

Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1983.

[CLARK 86] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA

Internet protocols", Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Symposium,

Computer Communications Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 106-114,

August 1988.

[HEART 70] Heart, F., Kahn, R., Ornstein, S., Crowther, W.,

and D. Walden, "The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA

Computer Network", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567,

June 1970.

[IEEE 78] Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), Uncapher, K. and

H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the

IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks,

Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978.

[IEEE 87] Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), Nielson, D., and

F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the

IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75,

No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987.

[LEINER 85] Leiner, B., Cole, R., Postel, J., and D. Mills,

"The DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,

March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.

[METCALFE 76] Metcalfe, R., and D. Boggs, "Ethernet:

Distributed Packet for Local Computer Networks", Communications

of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976.

[POSTEL 85] Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the

DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,

March 1985.

[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC821,

USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.

[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet

Text Messages", RFC822, University of Delaware, August 1982.

[RFC987] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400 and RFC822",

University College London, June 1986.

[RFC1000] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "The Request for

Comments Reference Guide", RFC1000, USC/Information Sciences

Institute, August 1987.

[RFC1026] Kille, S., "Addendum to RFC987: (Mapping between

X.400 and RFC822)", RFC1026, University College London,

September 1987.

[RFC1109] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network

Management Review Group", RFC1109, NRI, August 1989.

[RFC1113] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet

Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and

Authentication Procedures", RFC1113, IAB Privacy Task

Force, August 1989.

[RFC1114] Kent, S., and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement for

Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based Key

Management", RFC1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.

[RFC1115] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet

Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers",

RFC1115, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.

[RFC1140] Postel, J., Editor, "IAB Official Protocol

Standards", RFC1140, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.

[RFC1148] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021

and RFC822", RFC1048, UCL, March 1990.

[ROBERTS 70] Roberts, L., and B. Wessler, "Computer Network

Development to Achieve Resource Sharing", pp. 543-549,

Proc. SJCC 1970.

[ROBERTS 78] Roberts, L., "Evolution of Packet Switching",

Proc. IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 1307-1313, November 1978.

Note: RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI

International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, (1-800-

235-3155), or on-line via anonymous file transfer from NIC.DDN.MIL.

Author's Address

Vinton G. Cerf

Corporation for National Research Initiatives

1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100

Reston, VA 22091

Phone: (703) 620-8990

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有