Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
TCP-IP Digest Vol. 1 No. 13
TCP/IP Digest Monday, 18 Jan 1982 Volume 1 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
New Digest Headers
Public Distribution of Digests
Restricted Distribution of Mailing Lists/Digests/Etc?
What is PUBLIC and What is PRIVATE Distribution?
Precedent for Privacy of Electronic Mail
Related Discussion Group Information
To TCP or not to TCP?
InterNet Addresses && Overloading the Dot
TCP/IP on a Cyber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike at BRL
Subject: New Digest Headers
This digest marks the first issue with the new headers people have been
asking for. If this is not completely delightful to everybody, please
let me know.
Cheers,
-Mike
------------------------------
From: Mike Peeler <Admin.MDP at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Public Distribution
One way we could tell people that digest material is not public
would be first to announce the fact as an administrative note in the
digest and then to mention it whenever introducing a new member to the
list (by sending them a "welcome" note). This approach is much less
distasteful than that of putting a warning on the label.
The problem with it is that not all subscribers are added by one
list maintainer. In fact, many of them get the digests by mechanisms
essentially equivalent to a bulletin board. This means that a large
fraction of our new readers will never get a welcome note.
If we regard the above as ineffective, then we want to make the
warning as unobtrusive as possible. Two possibilities present them-
selves. The first possibility would be to tuck it away in the header
instead of the banner; for example
Date: Friday, 15 January 1982
From: PCP-IV at BAL
Private: Not for public distribution
Subject: PCP-IV Digest V9 #23
To: PCP-IV at BAL
The second possibility would be to place the warning at the bottom of
the digest instead of the top; it might look like
------------------------------
************** End of PCP-IV Digest **************
********* (Not For Public Distribution) **********
******************************************************
or perhaps something less ostentatious to the same effect.
The latter, like the warning in the banner, will break some
undigestifying programs, but probably in a milder and more easily
reparable way. The former will not break most software, but may not
be as aesthetically acceptable.
Yours very sincerely,
Mike
------------------------------
From: Paul A. Karger <KARGER at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: restricted distribution of mailing lists/digests/etc
While putting a restricted distribution statement on a digest may be a
psychological limitation on distribution, there a couple of problems. First,
since ARPA and DCA are part of the DoD, there are specific regulations
on what may or may not be marked as FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. The regulations
are in part designed to not let people invent other kinds of markings.
This dates back to the Ellsberg case and the desire to limit the ability
of govt people to conceal information from the "public" (whoever that is)
What happens if someone submits a Freedom of information Act request
for Volume 2, Issue 6 of TCP-IP Digest? Worse still, what if someone
submits a FOIA request for SFL??
My familliarity with the applicable regs is a little stale, because I left
the Air Force over 2 years ago, but I would be very careful about developing
new ways to restrict distribution of government information.
Paul Karger
------------------------------
From: V. Ellen Golden <ELLEN at MIT-MC>
Subject: [Paul A. Karger: restricted distribution of mailing lists/digests]
THE ELLSBERG CASE? Gosh... I am ancient.
Daniel Ellsberg made copies of the Pentagon Papers, which were
secret discussions about the Vietnam War. He worked for a Harvard/MIT
institute for Government (Political Science) sort of thing. He thought
"the people" should know what was going on, and so made copies of the
reports. The CIA etc was not enthusiased. The group who were involved
in stopping him were the same group which became familiar later:
The Plumbers (they invaded his psychiatrist's office, in California, yet).
The Pentagon Papers were published in the New York Times. I admit I am
not sure if this was the event which triggered the Plumbers (of later
Watergate fame) to go to the psychiatrist's office, or if after all was
said and done, the stuff finally made it to the public eye. (Other ancients
like myself may recall better than I, and I beg them to correct my somewhat
sketchy remembrance of the events.)
anyway... in some way the Ellsberg case does have a bearing here in
the Digest-people discussion. Do "the people" have a right to "know"
(what?). I would say myself that what is in digests is not classified
in any sense of the word, but I have no idea how that relates to our
(ARPANET) status.
------------------------------
Subject: What is Public and what is Private distribution?
From: TMPL at BBNG
How my name got on the Digest list is a longish story, so I won't
go into it, except to say that it had to do with my exploring
some form of internetworking as a better way of accessing the net
than I do currently (corporate phone lines to Boston or Telenet).
My main use of the net is as part of the computer security
community and is fully and properly justified by the right set of
letters from the Pentagon to BBN, DCA, etc. ANYWAY, I have found
the Digest most interesting and have been circulating it to our
communications and systems research people, chiefly because it is
quite clear that at some point our products will have to support
TCP etc. for our government customers at least. I view such a
redistribution as an acceptable way of communicating research
results to those who can and ought to use them. It certainly
isn't a public distribution in the sense of the mass media, but I
would like to be reassured that it is an acceptably private one.
Ted Lee
Manager, Systems Security
Sperry Univac
Roseville, Mn.
------------------------------
From: Mike Muuss <tcp-ip@brl>
Subject: Re: What is Public and what is Private distribution?
Ted -
I am pleased that a major manufacturer like Sperry Univac is
looking at the TCP/IP protocols (and the Digest). It is groups just
like yours that everyone expects the Digests to go to. Frequently,
the Digest will contain status reports about on-going
projects, or discussions of evolving featues/bugs/whatever. This
type of "working notes" material can often be confusing or misleading
to the casual onlooker, and hence the concern that information which
is going to the general public be obtained through official channels
(Jon Postel or Vint Cerf, DCA/DARPA/ISI).
Please do not re-publish materials or statements from the Digest,
but please DO feel free to distribute it to any interested people within
your organization.
Sleepily,
-Mike
------------------------------
Sender: TMPL at BBNG
Subject: Precedent for Privacy of Electronic Mail
There does seem to be some sort of legal basis for claiming that
material such as the Digest is covered by existing privacy laws.
The report in Computerworld about the US Postal Service's new
Electronic Computer-Originated Mail (Ecom) contains the following
interesting observation:
"...because at least 50% of Ecom is electronically based, a part
of the operation is covered under the rules of the Communications
Act of 1934. A sign is conspicuously posted in Ecom's Boston
center stating that anyone who violates a message's confidence or
removes a scrap of paper from the Ecom computer room will be
subject to a $10,000 fine, two years in jail or both.
"Once the messages are put in the bright blue and white Ecom
envelope, they are considered as mail and covered under the
standard postal regulations governing mail handling, an Ecom
spokesman said."
(from Computerworld, 11 Jan 1982, p. 12)
Ted Lee
Sperry Univac
------------------------------
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Pointers to mail header discussions
Mike -
Hers is what I have on Header-People and MsgGroup lists and their
archives. This information is from OFFICE-3 publicly-accessible file
<ALMSA>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT OFFICE-3 supports the net "standard"
ANONYMOUS login with password ARPA.
-Rich Zellich
ALMSA
---
HEADER-PEOPLE at MIT-MC
Interest specifically in the format of message headers and related issues
such as inter-network mail formats/standards, etc.
Header-People messages are filed on MIT-MC:KSC;HEADER MINS [and MINS01,
MINS02, etc.]. The ones more than 3 years old have been "reaped" but could
be retrieved if anyone wants to see them.
Coordinator: David A. Moon <MOON at MIT-MC>
MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Interest in electronic mail, message formats, message systems, and the
sociological implications of the above.
Coordinator: EStefferud at USC-ECL/MsgGroup at USC-ECL
[ In future discussions of these issues, please CC these other lists.
I would like to see the meta-discussion migrate to a more appropriate
place. This does not remove it's vital importance to this list, however.
-Mike ]
------------------------------
From: Christopher C. Stacy <CStacy at MIT-AI>
Subject: To TCP or not to TCP?
Date: 14 January 1982 0206-PST (Thursday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Is there some good reason that the ITS machines cannot be
gatewayed through a supported machine? Even little 11's like
the 24 should be able to run some sort of existing TCP/IP
implementation. Rand-Unix currently talks to the ARPANET over
a 9600 baud tty line via an 11/34 running the NCP.
--Lauren--
No, there is not any real reason why we cannot set up some limited
gateway. However, the design of really complete gateways with
protocol translation like one would want is an unsolved research
question.
In fact we will probably implement some limited functionality to
connect our local network to the Internet, but we will not do any
development which requires a major software effort. To implement a
real TCP for an ITS machine would require about two years of heavy
duty full time system programming, and since we are rapidly phasing
out our timesharing machines we are not going to undertake such work.
We are not going to do anything until we wake up one day and discover
our plug being pulled out.
------------------------------
From: Hal.Cornell at UDel
Subject: Internet addresses
I was bothered by the "user.host @ net" internetwork address for
another reason: the meaning of "@ foo" is ambiguous. Foo could be
either a network name or just the name of a regular ARPANET host.
How about using "user @ host @@ net" for internet addresses? The
"@@ net" could be omitted if the user is on the same network, and
if the user is on the same host, "@ host" could be eliminated also.
Hal Perkins
(Hal.Cornell @ UDel)
------------------------------
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: Overloading the Dot
In the transition plan for converting from NCP to TCP (RFC801), the
plan for mail includes a provision for forwarding mail through a special
forwarder program from NCP/FTP mail hosts to TCP/SMTP hosts by using the
special forwarding address "user.host@fwdr".
After considering the comments in this digest and in other inputs I
have received, I do agree that the syntax "user.host@fwdr" will be
awkward for some hosts to handle. We need to select a different
character for the separator between the "user" and "host" parts in
this special forwarding address. My current candidate is per cent (%).
Are their any problems with this choice?
I have discussed this with the people developing the JNT mail system in
the UK, and this use of per cent fits in well with their syntax.
--jon.
------------------------------
From: Crimmins at BRL-BMD
Subject: TCP/IP on a CYBER
I spoke with Tim Fallon of Tektronix about implementing
TCP/IP on a CYBER 175 running NOS. The results of my conversation
are as follows.
DOCUMENTATION:
All documentation is in the code and the Tektronix legal dept. is
not ready to release the code. Therefore, no documentation is available.
IMPLEMENTATION:
IP implemented in a PP, ~4000 lines of PP assembler code.
TCP runs at a control point in NOS, written in SYMPL.
SYMPL is a CDC product.
TomC
------------------------------
[ The following letter arrived Via UUCP, and cannot be answered through the
BRL-BMD machine. -Mike ]
From: steveg.Azure at BRL-BMD
Cc: rickk.Teklabs at BRL-BMD, timf.Teklabs at BRL-BMD,
clemc.Teklabs at BRL-BMD
Subject: Tek's implementation of tcp-ip for Cyber
The statement in the digest was somewhat wrong. [Volume 1 : Issue 12]
The TCP implementation is done in SYMPL (an implementation language for
the Cyber). The IP implementation is in Cyber Peripheral Processor
assembler (and possibly some SYMPL code). The upper level stuff (FTP
et. al) is being done in Ratfor. There are no plans to do a telnet
server as Cyber timesharing is too heavily bound into the front-end
hardware (psuedo terminals are very difficult to implement). We are
using Hyperchannel hardware and have not done any work with any other
hardware. Throughput looping back in the hyperchannel adapter on an
idle Cyber 175 is in the 1Mbit range. This is all under NOS.
An implementation fo VMS is also underway here, but I'm not very up on
that one. I think it's being done in Ratfor (so they can use the same
code for FTP as the Cyber). We did write a hyperchannel driver for
3Com's UNET on both the 11/70 and Vax Unix systems.
The actual guys that did the work can be reached at:
...!teklabs!rickk (Rick Krull - FTP, Unix stuff)
...!teklabs!timf (Tim Fallon - Cyber IP, TCP, project mgr)
[ snail mail:
Box 500, M/S 50-454, Beaverton OR 97077
(503) 644-0161
]
Currently, they're working with 3Com to get the Unix-TCP flow control
code working fully as the Cyber can easily overdrive the Unix machines.
Steve Glaser
END OF TCP-IP DIGEST
********************
