home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- NWG/RFC#469 Michael D. Kudlick MDK (SRI-ARC)
- NIC 14798 8-MAR-73
-
- Network Mail Meeting Summary
-
- Introduction
-
- The purpose of this RFC is to briefly summarize, from the NIC's
- viewpoint, the principal conclusions reached at the Network Mail
- Meeting held Friday, February 23 1973, at SRI-ARC.
-
- Please refer to RFC #475 (NIC 14919) for Abhay Bhushan's
- comprehensive summary of the issues discussed at the meeting.
-
- There is no major disagreement between the present RFC and RFC
- #475.
-
- RFC #453 (NIC 14317) contains background information on the
- meeting.
-
- RFC #479 (NIC 14948) describes what the NIC would like to see
- included in the File Transfer Protocol for Network Mail purposes,
- and also describes briefly how the NIC would use the information.
-
- The present RFC is organized as follows:
-
- Conclusions
- Discussion
- Attendees
-
- Conclusions
-
- Additional FTP mail requirements were decided upon. These would be
- implemented as a new mail command, with the following subcommands:
-
- TO
-
- This field is explicitly allowed to contain multiple
- addressees, with a standard syntax: user@host.
-
- FROM
-
- This field provides a return-address for notification of
- undeliverable mail, as well as a clearcut identification of the
- sender for the recipient's information..
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 1]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- AUTHOR
-
- This field denotes the author of the mail. There may be
- multiple authors
-
- TITLE
- The "title" (i.e. subject) of the mail is to be terminated by
- period carriage return.
-
- ACKNOWLEDEGMENT success / failure (time out) / normal
-
- For use by the intermediate host, probably the NIC in most
- cases, to tell the sender what happened to his attempt to send
- mail. (Note: "normal" wasn't defined.)
-
- RECORDED jnumber / null
-
- Note: "jnumber" is the pre-assigned accession number (NIC
- number), to be used when known.
-
- The "RECORDED" subcommand provides for the option of having the
- mail recorded. Information given with this subcommand would be
- recognized at the NIC. Options are:
-
- to be recorded (in NIC journal) only,
- to be recorded and distributed,
- to be distributed only.
-
- This field would also be used to inform the recipient that the
- mail has been recorded.
-
- (In retrospect, it may be preferable to have a separate
- command to inform the recipient of this fact, but no
- decision on this was made at the 23-Feb-73 meeting.)
-
- TYPE long / urgent / ordinary
-
- This allows the recipient site to take whatever action it
- thinks appropriate in storing the mail.
-
- TEXT / FILE / CITATION
-
- TEXT
-
- This field is for the text of the mail message.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 2]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- FILE
-
- The purpose of the field is unclear to me. Does it contain a
- machine readable pointer to the file that the sender wishes the
- recipient to read?
-
- CITATION
-
- This field is a person-readable pointer to the file that the
- sender wishes the recipient to read. When the citation command
- is used, no mail is sent other than the citation.
-
-
- Discussion
-
- Introduction
-
- The key aspects in the solution are:
-
- 1) It is based on FTP.
-
- 2) It uses the NIC without requiring direct use of NLS.
-
- 3) There is a mechanism for uniformity in the use of
- user identifications.
-
- 4) There is a mechanism for recording the mail for
- later reference.
-
- These issues are covered in the discussion that follows.
-
- New FTP Mail Subcommands
-
- TO
-
- Addressee Format
-
- The standard form of the address is: user@host
-
- "User" may be an individual's last name; or it may be whatever
- other identification the recipient has chosen AND has made
- known to the rest of the network.
-
- If the intended host doesn't recognize the intended
- recipient's identification, then it sends back an
- "undeliverable" mail message to the sender's host. It is up
- to the individual to keep the NIC informed of his wherabouts
- [sic]; otherwise, he may not get his mail on time.
-
-
-
- [Page 3]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- NIC Role
-
- The NIC need have no role at all for mail sent from point A to
- point B, whenever that mail is not to be recorded at the NIC.
-
- For mail that is to be recorded at the NIC, the RECORDED
- subcommand is to be used.
-
- Also, when the sender does not know the standard address of the
- recipients, he may use the NIC to obtain this information.
-
- Idents and Addresses
-
- The NIC will modify its identification files to include the
- "user@host" standard address for each individual.
-
- Sites may ask the NIC to translate from NIC Ident, or from a
- user's last name, to the standard address. A query facility
- will be made available at the NIC to do the translation on
- request. The translation service will also be available for
- "group idents".
-
- This service would be FTP-like, in term of the prootocol
- [sic] it accepts, but would not be within FTP itself. A
- different server process would handle Ident translation
- requests.
-
- Translation will also be done at the NIC when the NIC is
- used as an intermediate point on the delivery route.
-
- The NIC could be an intermediate point for recording the
- mail as a NIC journal item, and for forwarding the mail
- to its ultimate destinations. During this process, the
- NIC would translate from NIC idents to standard
- addresses.
-
- In the NIC ident files, provision already exists to specify
- hardcopy or on-line delivery of recorded (NIC Journal) mail.
-
- This provision will be extended to include a "network"
- attribute, which means "deliver the mail to the host of this
- person".
-
- The network attribute may be qualified by restricting all
- mail to be kept at the sender, with only a notification
- message actually mailed.
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 4]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- Notification would be in the form of a citation giving "to",
- "from", "title", "date of submission", and "location of
- mail".
-
- TIP Users
-
- To enable TIP users to have access to the mail system, both for
- sending and receiving mail, it was suggested that some hosts
- will have to be the "home" site for these users (but no more
- than one "home" site per user).
-
- That is, an account that allows a TIP user to send and receive
- mail will have to be established at such a host.
-
- For the present, any TIP user can use the SRI-ARC system for
- his mail requirements.
-
- An alternate solution, that TIP's be equipped with a hardcopy
- device that is continuously available for printing mail, was
- discarded in favor of the above approach.
-
- FROM
-
- The "FROM" command in FTP, identifies the sender in "standard
- address" form.
-
- This will allow "undeliverable" mail notices to be sent back to
- the originator.
-
- The default condition is that the sender's host must retain
- the mail until it is "delivered" to the recipient's host.
-
- "Delivered" means that the recipient's host has accepted
- the mail. It does NOT mean that the recipient has READ
- the mail.
-
- Alternatively, the sender may designate that an intermediate
- host store the mail. Then the intermediate host has the
- responsibility of storing the mail until it is "delivered"
- to all intended recipients.
-
- The "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" command will allow an optional, positive
- acknowledgement to be given to the originator of the mail (the
- "FROM" addressee), stating that the mail was delivered.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 5]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- AUTHOR
-
- The AUTHOR may be several persons. For recorded documents the
- authors appear separately in the index of authors, to facilitate
- searching for mail when an author is known, but the title and
- location of the mail are unknown.
-
- TITLE
-
- The TITLE field is especially useful for recorded mail, since
- indexes on key words in the title can be produced relatively
- easily, and facilitate searching for mail.
-
- For this reason, the title should be a succinct indicator of the
- contents.
-
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
-
- Acknowledgement of failure to deliver should be given to the
- sender.
-
- An optional, positive acknowledgement of successful delivery to
- the recipient's sitename will be given on request of sender
- (like U.S. CERTIFIED mail).
-
- No acknowledgement that the recipient actually saw the mail
- will be given (comparable to not having U.S. REGISTERED mail).
-
- RECORDED
-
- The concept of "recorded" mail is that a permanent record of the
- mail is kept centrally, to allow future references and re-readings
- of the mail to be made.
-
- For example, in the NIC Journal system, a record is kept of all
- the items entered into the Journal. From this record, author,
- title-word, and NIC number indexes are produced to allow for
- references and re-readings.
-
- The key to retrieval of recorded Journal items is the use of an
- accession number (the NIC number). This essentially removes
- the possibility of duplicate filenames being used.
-
- The basic aspect of recorded mail which was discussed at the mail
- meeting is the assignment of an "accession" number.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 6]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- It was decided to get the accession numbers from the NIC on an
- as-needed basis, without pre-assignment and without local
- assignment of numbers.
-
- This subject may be reviewed in the future. Local assignment
- may be desirable to prevent the NIC from becoming a bottleneck
- in the mail process.
-
- It was pointed out that local assignment of numbers would be
- un-ambiguous if the numbers included some information such as
- sitename, date, and time.
-
- One other problem exits [sic], namely "where is the recorded
- document?".
-
- Initially the document should be in the NIC, but ultimately it
- could be anywhere on the Network, provided only that there is a
- central mechanism for indexing and cataloging all the recorded
- documents.
-
- The pathname to the recorded document would then include
- filename and sitename.
-
- TYPE
-
- The TYPE subcommand was a result of a discussion on the
- problems of large mail files, and the associated
- question of who would pay for the processing and storing
- of these files.
-
- The main decisions made were:
-
- a) The processing, transmittal, and storage costs of
- sending mail should be borne at the sender's host.
-
- b) The processing and storage costs of receiving
- mail should be borne at the recipient's host
- initially, as a default.
-
- Information to enable the recipient host to make an
- intelligent decision about where to store the incoming
- mail are passed along via the TYPE command.
-
- The recipient host will have the local option of
- providing either of the following services:
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 7]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- a) free use of system to send mail;
- b) free use of system to receive mail, i.e. login
- not required for delivery over the Network. (A
- possible alternative is use of a "mail" account,
- or use of the recipient's account, for processing
- and storage of the incoming mail.
-
- TEXT / FILE / CITATION
-
- TEXT
-
- This field is for the text of the mail message.
-
- FILE
-
- The purpose of this field is unclear to me. Does it contain a
- machine readable pointer to the file that the sender wishes the
- recipient to read?
-
- CITATION
-
- The citation is a person-readable pointer to the file that the
- sender wishes the recipient to read.
-
- An alternative to sending entire messages or files over the
- Network is to use the "CITATION" mechanism. With this, the
- sender sends a short message (the citation) saying, in effect,
- "please read file X at site Y".
-
- This alternative would be especially useful for
-
- a) mail that is distributed with group idents (to all
- liaisons, for example), and
-
- b) "long" files (size not defined) that the recipient may
- not be immediately interested in.
-
- However no method of enforcing use of this alternative was
- discussed. It will be up to the recipients to devise a
- scheme satisfactory to them.
-
- Other General Discussion
-
- Bob Kahn placed on the floor the following question (I paraphrase):
-
- Can't the design of a mail system be made to include alternative
- sources of data and alternative modes of operation, unless
- exclusion of these alternatives can be quantitatively defended?
-
-
-
- [Page 8]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- Particular aspects of this question are:
-
- 1) What is the desirability and difficulty of admitting different
- data sources into the mail system?
-
- What are the "boundaries" that divide permitted from prohibited
- data sources?
-
- What is the quantitative distinction between deferred and
- realtime mail?
-
- Will the design we come up with allow such things as
-
- a) handling a calendar that reflects the known and
- anticipated whereabouts of people so that meetings can be
- scheduled sensibly?
-
- b) formatting the mail contents for later query and other
- information handling?
-
- 2) Whatever primitives we implement, can't they be designed so as
- not to preclude things like Tenex "linking"?
-
- This requires two-way data communication paths.
-
- How do we specify and get the attention of a "sink" for the
- data stream?
-
- e.g., for interprocess communication, and for Tenex-type
- "linking".
-
- The general reaction to this discussion was one of perspective:
-
- In the scheme of things that could be considered "point-to-point
- communication", mailbox-type of communication is not the most
- general kind.
-
- AKB listed several types of communication problems:
-
- program-program communication
- people-people real-time communication, e.g.
- Tenex-type "links"
- computer teleconferencing
- mailbox communication: cataloging, storage
- protocols: host-host, telnet, file transfer
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 9]
-
- NIC 14798 MDK 8-MAR-73 17:24 14798
-
-
- A design for a mailbox-type system won't be required to encompass
- the problems of, say, a computer teleconferencing system, which
- has attributes (real-time, video, very large volume of data to be
- transferred, to name some) that are not attributes of a mail box
- system.
-
- Attendees at the Network Mail Meeting 2/23/73 at SRI-ARC
-
- Nancy Mimno BBN
- ACB Alan Bomberger AMES-67
- AKB Abhay Bhushan MIT-DMOG
- AWH Wayne Hathaway AMES-67
- CHI Charles Irby SRI-ARC
- DHC Dave Crocker UCLA-NMC
- JBP Jon Postel UCLA-NMC
- JDH Dave Hopper SRI-ARC
- JEW Jim White SRI-ARC
- LPD Peter Deutsch PARC-MAXC
- MCK Mark Krilanovich UCSB-MOD75
- MDK Mike Kudlick SRI-ARC
- REK2 Bob Kahn ARPA
- RKK Rajendra Kanodia MIT-MULTICS
- RST Ray Tomlinson BBN-TENEX
-
-
-
- [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
- [ into the online RFC archives by Joseph Marshall 9/97 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [Page 10]
-
-