by John Markoff · 1 Jan 2005 · 394pp · 108,215 words
. After the March 1969 meeting, Steve Crocker, a member of the UCLA group, had drawn up a preliminary set of notes he referred to as “Request for Comments 1.” Such RFCs would become a rich Internet tradition and a simple and efficient way to produce technical standards for the network. The first
…
Study Project Genie Project One proof-of-correctness problem psychodrama PUB Pynchon, Thomas Ram Dass RAND Corporation Rathbun, Emilia Rathbun, Harry Raymond, Dick Reddy, Raj Request for Comments (RFC) Reson, Sherry Resource One Reynolds, Walt Roberts, Ed Roberts, Larry robots Rogers, William P. Rolling Stone Rosen, Charlie Rosenbaum, Ron Roshi, Richard Baker Rossman, Michael
by Alexander R. Galloway · 1 Apr 2004 · 287pp · 86,919 words
a set of recommendations and rules that outline specific technical standards. The protocols that govern much of the Internet are contained in what are called RFC (Request For Comments) documents.8 Called “the primary documentation of the Internet,”9 these technical memoranda detail the vast majority of standards and protocols in use on the
…
agreed “scientific” rules of the system. For the Internet, these scientific rules are written down. Called protocols, they are available in documents known as RFCs, or “Requests for Comments.” Each RFC acts as a blueprint for a specific protocol. It instructs potential software designers and other computer scientists how to correctly implement each protocol in
…
other RFC subseries that warrant special attention: the Best Current Practice (BCP) documents and informational documents known as FYI. Each new protocol specification is drafted in accordance with RFC 1111, “Request for Comments on Request for Comments: Instructions to RFC Authors,” which specifies guidelines, text formatting and otherwise, for
…
160, 178 _readme (Bunting), 225 Reaper, 182 Recode, 215 Record, 72 Redcode, 182 Refresh (Shulgin), 215–216 Index 257 Reid, Brian, 147 Request for Comments (RFC), 6, 38, 133–137, 140 editor (see RFC editor) “Requiem for the Media” (Baudrillard), 58 Resistance, 16, 105, 147, 150, 158, 160–161, 176, 244 Resolution (DNS), 9, 47
by Andrew L. Russell · 27 Apr 2014 · 675pp · 141,667 words
Working Group OSI Open Systems Interconnection OSIC Open Systems Interconnection Committee PRnet Packet Radio Network PTT Post, Telegraph, and Telephone RCA Radio Corporation of America RFC Request for Comments ROAD Routing and Addressing SATnet Satellite Radio Network SC Subcommittee SNA System Network Architecture SPARC Standards Planning and Requirements Committee TC Technical Committee TCP Transmission
…
of technical correspondence with around two dozen recipients, including engineers at Western Electric and the chief engineers of regional Bell operating companies. Some GECs were requests for comments on issues such as underground construction in central offices; others described field experiments conducted in one part of the country; still others were draft proposals
…
the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) or X3. In the absence of any obvious external authority, Crocker initiated a document series in 1969 – the Request for Comments (RFCs) – whose name and structure perfectly captured NWG’s informal and experimental ethos. Crocker later recalled, “Most of us were graduate students … we kept expecting
…
The basic ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was official. And to emphasize the point, I labeled the notes ‘Request for Comments.’”21 The RFCs soon became the vehicle for the Network Working Group to publish consensus statements and technical standards for the Arpanet – even though they were specifically
…
at INWG’s first meeting in October 1972 established a document series of General Notes modeled on the tentative and research-oriented spirit of the Request for Comments used to communicate research questions and findings within the Arpanet community. The first INWG General Notes (numbers 0, 1, and 2) carry no founding
…
technical work in a way that could inform the ongoing efforts of the “official protocol designers” that Steve Crocker anticipated when he created the Arpanet Request for Comments series in 1969. Their desire to design protocols that would connect private and public networks – that is, telecommunication networks that, in most countries, were
…
his students at Stanford, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine, published the “Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program” as contributions to both the Arpanet Request for Comments series (where it was RFC 675) and as INWG General Note 72.62 Arpanet researcher Alex McKenzie, deeply concerned that INWG was splintering into two rival camps, proposed
…
Annals of the History of Computing 29 (2007): 40–51. 21 Stephen D. Crocker, “The Origins of RFCs,” in Joyce Reynolds and Jon Postel, eds. (1987), “The Request for Comments Reference Guide,” RFC 1000, http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1000 (accessed September 25, 2013). 22 Steve Crocker, oral history interview by Judy E. O’Neill, October
…
written for implementers. International [OSI] standards were written as documents to be obeyed.” Although the technical functions of the OSI international standards and an IETF Request for Comments (RFCs) were functionally equivalent from a technical perspective – since they both defined protocols to allow computer users to exchange data across different types of networks – they
…
naming of 166 Network Control Program (NCP) 168 NWG and 168, 169–170 overview 24, 270 packet-switching and 167–168 public unveiling of 170 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 169–170 Arrhenius, Svante 39–40 ASA. See American Standards Association (ASA) Aschenbrenner, John 227 ASME. See American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Associated
by Jonathan Zittrain · 27 May 2009 · 629pp · 142,393 words
-flung, unincorporated group of engineers who work on Internet standards and who have defined its protocols through a series of formal “request for comments” documents, or RFCs, published informational RFC 1135, titled “The Helminthiasis of the Internet.”25 RFC 1135 was titled and written with whimsy, echoing reminiscences of the worm as a fun challenge. The
…
degrees. His previous edits—and corresponding discussions in which he invoked his credentials—were called into question. In response to the controversy, and after a request for comments from the Wikipedia community,59 Jimbo proposed a rule whereby the credentials of those Wikipedia administrators who chose to assert them would be verified.60
…
be sure, from the earliest days of the Internet the people who designed its protocols acceded to some formality and diplomacy. Recall that they published “RFCs,” requests for comments designed to write up their ideas, creating institutional structure and memory as the project became bigger than just a few researchers in a room. The
…
, 116 HARV. L. REV. 749 (2003). 64. Jon Postel was the RFC editor for twenty-eight years, choosing which drafts of requests for comment to publish as IETF RFCs. RFC Editor et al., RFC 2555; 30 Years of RFCs (Apr. 7, 1999), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2555.txt. He was also the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, a name
by Chris Sanders · 15 Mar 2007
won't make sense. Note I won't go into great detail about the design of each individual protocol; instead, I have provided the associated RFC number for each. An RFC, or request for comments, is the official document that defines the implementation standards for protocols in the TCP/IP stack. You can search for
by Robert Daigneau · 14 Sep 2011
in the development of the Internet and its standards. Postel’s Law has been found in many Request For Comments (RFCs) as early as RFC 760 in 1980 (re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/ rfc760, section 3.2). RFC 1122 (re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#page-12) suggests that one should “Be liberal in
by Takuro Sato · 17 Nov 2015
be used to build a new network for the Smart Grid. A core set which consists of more than 150 individual Request for the Comments (RFCs) protocols has been developed for communications and cybersecurity. In the field of energy, NIST has set up six subject areas: alternative energy, electric power metrology
…
of an adaptation layer Smart Energy Consumption 211 interface to Internet Protocol (IP) Network Layer. Specification of IPv6 packet transmission over Ethernet is provided in Request for Comments (RFC), 2464 [22]. Other Networks The Adaptation Layer of other networks actually depends on the used PHY/MAC technology. In general, it is important to provide
by Thierry Bardini · 1 Dec 2000
Kleinrock's team of graduate students, volunteered to write the first meeting note, which he labeled "Request For Comments" in order "to avoid sounding too declarative," according to Hafner and Lyon (1996, 144). The accumulated archive of Requests For Comments (RFCs) documents not just the NGW's work, but the role that Engelbart's crusade played in
…
Engelbart's design, PODAC underwent an internal evaluation. Each POD was asked to reflect on its own experience and discuss it with other PODs ("PODCOM Request for Comments on PODAC Evaluation," JE#10221, April 27). Some PODs considered the experiment very successful, while oth- ers disagreed and wanted to end it. For instance
…
that "Roberts changed his mind, however, and continued with the work- ing group despite the difficultIes." 7. Crocker detailed the use and style of these Requests For Comments (RFCs) in the third note, dIstributed two days later and entitled "Documentation Conven- tions": "The Network Working Group (NWG) IS concerned with the HOST soft- ware
…
-5,258n7 Raskin, Jeffrey, 226 - 27 Raytheon Corporation, 25 8n6 RD, 192 READMAIL, 192 Rech, Paul, 198 RelativIty, 47-52 Remington, 74-79, 235 n2 Requests for Comments (RFCs), 185- 9 6 passim, 258nn7,9, 259nI3 RIder, Ronald, 173 Roberts, Larry, 146, 183-84, 192, 208, 248nI4, 255n3, 257nn5-6, 25 8nn 7,9
by Robin Sharp · 13 Feb 2008
can be purchased via the website or by contacting ITU-T. B.2.3 Internet standards Internet standards are so-called RFCs – Requests for Comments – which are available via the Internet itself. Each RFC has a number which identifies the topic. For example: RFC793, which describes TCP. Numbers are allocated in the order in which
…
object 310 Remote Object Invocation (ROI) 309 remote procedure call (RPC) 97, 299 renaming 11, 20, 22, 33, 39 replay attack 164 replicated directory 201 Request for Comments (RFC) 374 request primitive 94 resegmentation 114, 281 reset 58 residual error 57 residual error rate (RER) 57, 284 resolver 204 resource 340 responding entity 95
by Claire L. Evans · 6 Mar 2018 · 371pp · 93,570 words
country, often talking to people she’d never met in the flesh. She joined technical conversations on the Request for Comments (RFC), an ongoing interoffice memo authored collectively by researchers across the ARPANET. Although the first RFCs were print memos, once the NIC put them online, they became a shared hangout, much like a bulletin
…
, 89, 90 Directory for, 113, 118–19 Host Table registry of, 113, 114, 120 mix of people using, 119 NIC and, see Network Information Center Requests for Comments (RFCs), 117–18, 120, 129 Resource Handbook for, 112–13, 118 artificial intelligence, 174, 226 Asimov, Isaac, 171 Association for Computing Machinery, 67 astronomy, 9–11
…
America (RCA), 69 Radio Shack, 225 Raisch, Charles, 96 Razorfish, 191, 197–99 Reddit, 149 Reed, Lou, 192 Remington Rand, 60–63, 65–70, 73 Requests for Comments (RFCs), 117–18, 120, 129 Reson, Sherry, 95, 96, 103–7 Resource One, 96–108, 109, 130, 132, 215, 242 Resource One Generalized Information Retrieval System
by Pieter Hintjens · 12 Mar 2013 · 1,025pp · 150,187 words
by W. Richard Stevens, Bill Fenner, Andrew M. Rudoff · 8 Jun 2013
by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon · 1 Jan 1996 · 352pp · 96,532 words
by Michal Zalewski · 26 Nov 2011 · 570pp · 115,722 words
by Philip Hazel · 7 Jul 2001 · 632pp · 223,899 words
by Justin Schuh · 20 Nov 2006 · 2,054pp · 359,149 words
by Wolfgang Barth · 19 Aug 2009 · 996pp · 180,520 words
by Wolfgang Barth · 25 May 2006
by Eric S. Raymond · 22 Sep 2003 · 612pp · 187,431 words
by M. Mitchell Waldrop · 14 Apr 2001
by Bruce Schneier · 10 Nov 1993
by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths · 4 Apr 2016 · 523pp · 143,139 words
by Walter Isaacson · 6 Oct 2014 · 720pp · 197,129 words
by Raphaal Hertzog and Roland Mas · 24 Dec 2013 · 678pp · 159,840 words
by Dariusz Jemielniak · 13 May 2014 · 312pp · 93,504 words
by Lawrence Lessig · 14 Jul 2001 · 494pp · 142,285 words
by Pieter Hintjens · 11 Mar 2013 · 349pp · 114,038 words
by Richard Petersen · 15 May 2015
by Michael Schwarz, Jeremy Anderson and Peter Curtis · 7 May 2002
by James Ball · 19 Aug 2020 · 268pp · 76,702 words
by Lisa Gitelman · 26 Mar 2014
by Imran Bashir · 28 Mar 2018
by Unknown
by P. W. Singer and Allan Friedman · 3 Jan 2014 · 587pp · 117,894 words
by Azeem Azhar · 6 Sep 2021 · 447pp · 111,991 words
by Nadia Eghbal · 3 Aug 2020 · 1,136pp · 73,489 words
by Rakesh Vidya Chandra and Bala Subrahmanyam Varanasi · 16 Jun 2015 · 134pp · 29,488 words
by Martin L. Abbott and Michael T. Fisher · 1 Dec 2009
by Glyn Moody · 14 Jul 2002 · 483pp · 145,225 words
by Tim O'Reilly · 9 Oct 2017 · 561pp · 157,589 words
by E. Gabriella Coleman · 25 Nov 2012 · 398pp · 107,788 words
by Francesco Cesarini · 496pp · 70,263 words
by Anthony M. Townsend · 29 Sep 2013 · 464pp · 127,283 words
by Joanna Walsh · 22 Sep 2025 · 255pp · 80,203 words
by The Virtual Community Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier-Perseus Books (1993) · 26 Apr 2012
by Camila Russo · 13 Jul 2020 · 349pp · 102,827 words
by Suelette Dreyfus · 1 Jan 2011 · 547pp · 160,071 words
by Karen Hao · 19 May 2025 · 660pp · 179,531 words
by Christian Crumlish and Erin Malone · 30 Sep 2009 · 518pp · 49,555 words