throbber
Page 1 of 97
`
`>
`
`Network Working Group Internet Engineering Task Force
`Request for Comments: 1123 R. Braden, Editor
`October 1989
`
`Requirements for Internet Hosts --Application and Support
`Status of This Memo
`This RFC is an official specification for the Internet community. It
`incorporates by reference, amends, corrects, and supplements the
`primary protocol standards documents relating to hosts. Distribution
`of this document is unlimited.
`Summary
`This RFC is one of a pair that defines and discusses the requirements
`for Internet host software. This RFC covers the application and
`support protocols; its companion RFC-1122 covers the communication
`protocol layers: link layer, IP layer, and transport layer.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 5
`1.1 The Internet Architecture .............................. 6
`1.2 General Considerations ................................. 6
`1.2.1 Continuing Internet Evolution ..................... 6
`1.2.2 Robustness Principle .............................. 7
`1.2.3 Error Logging ..................................... 8
`1.2.4 Configuration ..................................... 8
`1.3 Reading this Document .................................. 10
`1.3.1 Organization ...................................... 10
`1.3.2 Requirements ...................................... 10
`1.3.3 Terminology ....................................... 11
`1.4 Acknowledgments ........................................ 12
`2. GENERAL ISSUES ............................................. 13
`2.1 Host Names and Numbers ................................. 13
`2.2 Using Domain Name Service .............................. 13
`2.3 Applications on Multihomed hosts ....................... 14
`2.4 Type-of-Service ........................................ 14
`2.5 GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ............... 15
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 1]
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 1 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 2 of 97
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`3. REMOTE LOGIN --TELNET PROTOCOL ............................ 16
`3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 16
`3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH .................................. 16
`3.2.1 Option Negotiation ................................ 16
`3.2.2 Telnet Go-Ahead Function .......................... 16
`3.2.3 Control Functions ................................. 17
`3.2.4 Telnet "Synch" Signal ............................. 18
`3.2.5 NVT Printer and Keyboard .......................... 19
`3.2.6 Telnet Command Structure .......................... 20
`3.2.7 Telnet Binary Option .............................. 20
`3.2.8 Telnet Terminal-Type Option ....................... 20
`3.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ........................................ 21
`3.3.1 Telnet End-of-Line Convention ..................... 21
`3.3.2 Data Entry Terminals .............................. 23
`3.3.3 Option Requirements ............................... 24
`3.3.4 Option Initiation ................................. 24
`3.3.5 Telnet Linemode Option ............................ 25
`3.4 TELNET/USER INTERFACE .................................. 25
`3.4.1 Character Set Transparency ........................ 25
`3.4.2 Telnet Commands ................................... 26
`3.4.3 TCP Connection Errors ............................. 26
`3.4.4 Non-Default Telnet Contact Port ................... 26
`3.4.5 Flushing Output ................................... 26
`3.5. TELNET REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ........................... 27
`4. FILE TRANSFER .............................................. 29
`4.1 FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL --FTP .......................... 29
`4.1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 29
`4.1.2. PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................ 29
`4.1.2.1 LOCAL Type ................................... 29
`4.1.2.2 Telnet Format Control ........................ 30
`4.1.2.3 Page Structure ............................... 30
`4.1.2.4 Data Structure Transformations ............... 30
`4.1.2.5 Data Connection Management ................... 31
`4.1.2.6 PASV Command ................................. 31
`4.1.2.7 LIST and NLST Commands ....................... 31
`4.1.2.8 SITE Command ................................. 32
`4.1.2.9 STOU Command ................................. 32
`4.1.2.10 Telnet End-of-line Code ..................... 32
`4.1.2.11 FTP Replies ................................. 33
`4.1.2.12 Connections ................................. 34
`4.1.2.13 Minimum Implementation; RFC-959 Section ..... 34
`4.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 35
`4.1.3.1 Non-standard Command Verbs ................... 35
`4.1.3.2 Idle Timeout ................................. 36
`4.1.3.3 Concurrency of Data and Control .............. 36
`4.1.3.4 FTP Restart Mechanism ........................ 36
`4.1.4 FTP/USER INTERFACE ................................ 39
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 2]
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 2 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 3 of 97
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`4.1.4.1 Pathname Specification ....................... 39
`4.1.4.2 "QUOTE" Command .............................. 40
`4.1.4.3 Displaying Replies to User ................... 40
`4.1.4.4 Maintaining Synchronization .................. 40
`4.1.5 FTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ......................... 41
`4.2 TRIVIAL FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL --TFTP ................. 44
`4.2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 44
`4.2.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 44
`4.2.2.1 Transfer Modes ............................... 44
`4.2.2.2 UDP Header ................................... 44
`4.2.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 44
`4.2.3.1 Sorcerer's Apprentice Syndrome ............... 44
`4.2.3.2 Timeout Algorithms ........................... 46
`4.2.3.3 Extensions ................................... 46
`4.2.3.4 Access Control ............................... 46
`4.2.3.5 Broadcast Request ............................ 46
`4.2.4 TFTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ......................... 47
`5. ELECTRONIC MAIL --SMTP and RFC-822 ........................ 48
`5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 48
`5.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH .................................. 48
`5.2.1 The SMTP Model .................................... 48
`5.2.2 Canonicalization .................................. 49
`5.2.3 VRFY and EXPN Commands ............................ 50
`5.2.4 SEND, SOML, and SAML Commands ..................... 50
`5.2.5 HELO Command ...................................... 50
`5.2.6 Mail Relay ........................................ 51
`5.2.7 RCPT Command ...................................... 52
`5.2.8 DATA Command ...................................... 53
`5.2.9 Command Syntax .................................... 54
`5.2.10 SMTP Replies ..................................... 54
`5.2.11 Transparency ..................................... 55
`5.2.12 WKS Use in MX Processing ......................... 55
`5.2.13 RFC-822 Message Specification .................... 55
`5.2.14 RFC-822 Date and Time Specification .............. 55
`5.2.15 RFC-822 Syntax Change ............................ 56
`5.2.16 RFC-822 Local-part .............................. 56
`5.2.17 Domain Literals .................................. 57
`5.2.18 Common Address Formatting Errors ................. 58
`5.2.19 Explicit Source Routes ........................... 58
`5.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ........................................ 59
`5.3.1 SMTP Queueing Strategies .......................... 59
`5.3.1.1 Sending Strategy .............................. 59
`5.3.1.2 Receiving strategy ........................... 61
`5.3.2 Timeouts in SMTP .................................. 61
`5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt ............................. 63
`5.3.4 Reliable Mail Transmission ........................ 63
`5.3.5 Domain Name Support ............................... 65
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 3]
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 3 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 4 of 97
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`5.3.6 Mailing Lists and Aliases ......................... 65
`5.3.7 Mail Gatewaying ................................... 66
`5.3.8 Maximum Message Size .............................. 68
`5.4 SMTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .............................. 69
`6. SUPPORT SERVICES ............................................ 72
`6.1 DOMAIN NAME TRANSLATION ................................. 72
`6.1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 72
`6.1.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 72
`6.1.2.1 Resource Records with Zero TTL ............... 73
`6.1.2.2 QCLASS Values ................................ 73
`6.1.2.3 Unused Fields ................................ 73
`6.1.2.4 Compression .................................. 73
`6.1.2.5 Misusing Configuration Info .................. 73
`6.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 74
`6.1.3.1 Resolver Implementation ...................... 74
`6.1.3.2 Transport Protocols .......................... 75
`6.1.3.3 Efficient Resource Usage ..................... 77
`6.1.3.4 Multihomed Hosts ............................. 78
`6.1.3.5 Extensibility ................................ 79
`6.1.3.6 Status of RR Types ........................... 79
`6.1.3.7 Robustness ................................... 80
`6.1.3.8 Local Host Table ............................. 80
`6.1.4 DNS USER INTERFACE ................................ 81
`6.1.4.1 DNS Administration ........................... 81
`6.1.4.2 DNS User Interface ........................... 81
`6.1.4.3 Interface Abbreviation Facilities ............. 82
`6.1.5 DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ........... 84
`6.2 HOST INITIALIZATION .................................... 87
`6.2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 87
`6.2.2 REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 87
`6.2.2.1 Dynamic Configuration ........................ 87
`6.2.2.2 Loading Phase ................................ 89
`6.3 REMOTE MANAGEMENT ...................................... 90
`6.3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 90
`6.3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 90
`6.3.3 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ................... 92
`7. REFERENCES ................................................. 93
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 4]
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 4 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 5 of 97
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`This document is one of a pair that defines and discusses the
`requirements for host system implementations of the Internet protocol
`suite. This RFC covers the applications layer and support protocols.
`Its companion RFC, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --Communications
`Layers" [INTRO:1] covers the lower layer protocols: transport layer,
`IP layer, and link layer.
`These documents are intended to provide guidance for vendors,
`implementors, and users of Internet communication software. They
`represent the consensus of a large body of technical experience and
`wisdom, contributed by members of the Internet research and vendor
`communities.
`This RFC enumerates standard protocols that a host connected to the
`Internet must use, and it incorporates by reference the RFCs and
`other documents describing the current specifications for these
`protocols. It corrects errors in the referenced documents and adds
`additional discussion and guidance for an implementor.
`For each protocol, this document also contains an explicit set of
`requirements, recommendations, and options. The reader must
`understand that the list of requirements in this document is
`incomplete by itself; the complete set of requirements for an
`Internet host is primarily defined in the standard protocol
`specification documents, with the corrections, amendments, and
`supplements contained in this RFC.
`A good-faith implementation of the protocols that was produced after
`careful reading of the RFC's and with some interaction with the
`Internet technical community, and that followed good communications
`software engineering practices, should differ from the requirements
`of this document in only minor ways. Thus, in many cases, the
`"requirements" in this RFC are already stated or implied in the
`standard protocol documents, so that their inclusion here is, in a
`sense, redundant. However, they were included because some past
`implementation has made the wrong choice, causing problems of
`interoperability, performance, and/or robustness.
`This document includes discussion and explanation of many of the
`requirements and recommendations. A simple list of requirements
`would be dangerous, because:
`o Some required features are more important than others, and some
`features are optional.
`o There may be valid reasons why particular vendor products that
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 5]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 5 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 6 of 97
`
`are designed for restricted contexts might choose to use
`different specifications.
`However, the specifications of this document must be followed to meet
`the general goal of arbitrary host interoperation across the
`diversity and complexity of the Internet system. Although most
`current implementations fail to meet these requirements in various
`ways, some minor and some major, this specification is the ideal
`towards which we need to move.
`These requirements are based on the current level of Internet
`architecture. This document will be updated as required to provide
`additional clarifications or to include additional information in
`those areas in which specifications are still evolving.
`This introductory section begins with general advice to host software
`vendors, and then gives some guidance on reading the rest of the
`document. Section 2 contains general requirements that may be
`applicable to all application and support protocols. Sections 3, 4,
`and 5 contain the requirements on protocols for the three major
`applications: Telnet, file transfer, and electronic mail,
`respectively. Section 6 covers the support applications: the domain
`name system, system initialization, and management. Finally, all
`references will be found in Section 7.
`1.1 The Internet Architecture
`For a brief introduction to the Internet architecture from a host
`viewpoint, see Section 1.1 of [INTRO:1]. That section also
`contains recommended references for general background on the
`Internet architecture.
`1.2 General Considerations
`There are two important lessons that vendors of Internet host
`software have learned and which a new vendor should consider
`seriously.
`1.2.1 Continuing Internet Evolution
`The enormous growth of the Internet has revealed problems of
`management and scaling in a large datagram-based packet
`communication system. These problems are being addressed, and
`as a result there will be continuing evolution of the
`specifications described in this document. These changes will
`be carefully planned and controlled, since there is extensive
`participation in this planning by the vendors and by the
`organizations responsible for operations of the networks.
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 6]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 6 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 7 of 97
`
`Development, evolution, and revision are characteristic of
`computer network protocols today, and this situation will
`persist for some years. A vendor who develops computer
`communication software for the Internet protocol suite (or any
`other protocol suite!) and then fails to maintain and update
`that software for changing specifications is going to leave a
`trail of unhappy customers. The Internet is a large
`communication network, and the users are in constant contact
`through it. Experience has shown that knowledge of
`deficiencies in vendor software propagates quickly through the
`Internet technical community.
`1.2.2 Robustness Principle
`At every layer of the protocols, there is a general rule whose
`application can lead to enormous benefits in robustness and
`interoperability:
`"Be liberal in what you accept, and
`conservative in what you send"
`Software should be written to deal with every conceivable
`error, no matter how unlikely; sooner or later a packet will
`come in with that particular combination of errors and
`attributes, and unless the software is prepared, chaos can
`ensue. In general, it is best to assume that the network is
`filled with malevolent entities that will send in packets
`designed to have the worst possible effect. This assumption
`will lead to suitable protective design, although the most
`serious problems in the Internet have been caused by
`unenvisaged mechanisms triggered by low-probability events;
`mere human malice would never have taken so devious a course!
`Adaptability to change must be designed into all levels of
`Internet host software. As a simple example, consider a
`protocol specification that contains an enumeration of values
`for a particular header field --e.g., a type field, a port
`number, or an error code; this enumeration must be assumed to
`be incomplete. Thus, if a protocol specification defines four
`possible error codes, the software must not break when a fifth
`code shows up. An undefined code might be logged (see below),
`but it must not cause a failure.
`The second part of the principle is almost as important:
`software on other hosts may contain deficiencies that make it
`unwise to exploit legal but obscure protocol features. It is
`unwise to stray far from the obvious and simple, lest untoward
`effects result elsewhere. A corollary of this is "watch out
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 7]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 7 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 8 of 97
`
`for misbehaving hosts"; host software should be prepared, not
`just to survive other misbehaving hosts, but also to cooperate
`to limit the amount of disruption such hosts can cause to the
`shared communication facility.
`1.2.3 Error Logging
`The Internet includes a great variety of host and gateway
`systems, each implementing many protocols and protocol layers,
`and some of these contain bugs and mis-features in their
`Internet protocol software. As a result of complexity,
`diversity, and distribution of function, the diagnosis of user
`problems is often very difficult.
`Problem diagnosis will be aided if host implementations include
`a carefully designed facility for logging erroneous or
`"strange" protocol events. It is important to include as much
`diagnostic information as possible when an error is logged. In
`particular, it is often useful to record the header(s) of a
`packet that caused an error. However, care must be taken to
`ensure that error logging does not consume prohibitive amounts
`of resources or otherwise interfere with the operation of the
`host.
`There is a tendency for abnormal but harmless protocol events
`to overflow error logging files; this can be avoided by using a
`"circular" log, or by enabling logging only while diagnosing a
`known failure. It may be useful to filter and count duplicate
`successive messages. One strategy that seems to work well is:
`(1) always count abnormalities and make such counts accessible
`through the management protocol (see Section 6.3); and (2)
`allow the logging of a great variety of events to be
`selectively enabled. For example, it might useful to be able
`to "log everything" or to "log everything for host X".
`Note that different managements may have differing policies
`about the amount of error logging that they want normally
`enabled in a host. Some will say, "if it doesn't hurt me, I
`don't want to know about it", while others will want to take a
`more watchful and aggressive attitude about detecting and
`removing protocol abnormalities.
`1.2.4 Configuration
`It would be ideal if a host implementation of the Internet
`protocol suite could be entirely self-configuring. This would
`allow the whole suite to be implemented in ROM or cast into
`silicon, it would simplify diskless workstations, and it would
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 8]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`be an immense boon to harried LAN administrators as well as
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 8 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 9 of 97
`
`system vendors. We have not reached this ideal; in fact, we
`are not even close.
`At many points in this document, you will find a requirement
`that a parameter be a configurable option. There are several
`different reasons behind such requirements. In a few cases,
`there is current uncertainty or disagreement about the best
`value, and it may be necessary to update the recommended value
`in the future. In other cases, the value really depends on
`external factors --e.g., the size of the host and the
`distribution of its communication load, or the speeds and
`topology of nearby networks --and self-tuning algorithms are
`unavailable and may be insufficient. In some cases,
`configurability is needed because of administrative
`requirements.
`Finally, some configuration options are required to communicate
`with obsolete or incorrect implementations of the protocols,
`distributed without sources, that unfortunately persist in many
`parts of the Internet. To make correct systems coexist with
`these faulty systems, administrators often have to "mis-
`configure" the correct systems. This problem will correct
`itself gradually as the faulty systems are retired, but it
`cannot be ignored by vendors.
`When we say that a parameter must be configurable, we do not
`intend to require that its value be explicitly read from a
`configuration file at every boot time. We recommend that
`implementors set up a default for each parameter, so a
`configuration file is only necessary to override those defaults
`that are inappropriate in a particular installation. Thus, the
`configurability requirement is an assurance that it will be
`POSSIBLE to override the default when necessary, even in a
`binary-only or ROM-based product.
`This document requires a particular value for such defaults in
`some cases. The choice of default is a sensitive issue when
`the configuration item controls the accommodation to existing
`faulty systems. If the Internet is to converge successfully to
`complete interoperability, the default values built into
`implementations must implement the official protocol, not
`"mis-configurations" to accommodate faulty implementations.
`Although marketing considerations have led some vendors to
`choose mis-configuration defaults, we urge vendors to choose
`defaults that will conform to the standard.
`Finally, we note that a vendor needs to provide adequate
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 9]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`documentation on all configuration parameters, their limits and
`effects.
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 9 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 10 of 97
`
`1.3 Reading this Document
`1.3.1 Organization
`In general, each major section is organized into the following
`subsections:
`(1) Introduction
`(2) Protocol Walk-Through --considers the protocol
`specification documents section-by-section, correcting
`errors, stating requirements that may be ambiguous or
`ill-defined, and providing further clarification or
`explanation.
`(3) Specific Issues --discusses protocol design and
`implementation issues that were not included in the walk-
`through.
`(4) Interfaces --discusses the service interface to the next
`higher layer.
`(5) Summary --contains a summary of the requirements of the
`section.
`Under many of the individual topics in this document, there is
`parenthetical material labeled "DISCUSSION" or
`"IMPLEMENTATION". This material is intended to give
`clarification and explanation of the preceding requirements
`text. It also includes some suggestions on possible future
`directions or developments. The implementation material
`contains suggested approaches that an implementor may want to
`consider.
`The summary sections are intended to be guides and indexes to
`the text, but are necessarily cryptic and incomplete. The
`summaries should never be used or referenced separately from
`the complete RFC.
`1.3.2 Requirements
`In this document, the words that are used to define the
`significance of each particular requirement are capitalized.
`These words are:
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 10]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`* "MUST"
`This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 10 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 11 of 97
`
`is an absolute requirement of the specification.
`* "SHOULD"
`This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
`may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
`ignore this item, but the full implications should be
`understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
`a different course.
`* "MAY"
`This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item
`is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the
`item because a particular marketplace requires it or
`because it enhances the product, for example; another
`vendor may omit the same item.
`
`An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one
`or more of the MUST requirements for the protocols it
`implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST and
`all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be
`"unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST
`requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its
`protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
`1.3.3 Terminology
`This document uses the following technical terms:
`Segment
`A segment is the unit of end-to-end transmission in the
`TCP protocol. A segment consists of a TCP header followed
`by application data. A segment is transmitted by
`encapsulation in an IP datagram.
`Message
`This term is used by some application layer protocols
`(particularly SMTP) for an application data unit.
`Datagram
`A [UDP] datagram is the unit of end-to-end transmission in
`the UDP protocol.
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 11]
`
`RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
`
`Multihomed
`A host is said to be multihomed if it has multiple IP
`addresses to connected networks.
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 11 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 12 of 97
`
`1.4 Acknowledgments
`This document incorporates contributions and comments from a large
`group of Internet protocol experts, including representatives of
`university and research labs, vendors, and government agencies.
`It was assembled primarily by the Host Requirements Working Group
`of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
`The Editor would especially like to acknowledge the tireless
`dedication of the following people, who attended many long
`meetings and generated 3 million bytes of electronic mail over the
`past 18 months in pursuit of this document: Philip Almquist, Dave
`Borman (Cray Research), Noel Chiappa, Dave Crocker (DEC), Steve
`Deering (Stanford), Mike Karels (Berkeley), Phil Karn (Bellcore),
`John Lekashman (NASA), Charles Lynn (BBN), Keith McCloghrie (TWG),
`Paul Mockapetris (ISI), Thomas Narten (Purdue), Craig Partridge
`(BBN), Drew Perkins (CMU), and James Van Bokkelen (FTP Software).
`In addition, the following people made major contributions to the
`effort: Bill Barns (Mitre), Steve Bellovin (AT&T), Mike Brescia
`(BBN), Ed Cain (DCA), Annette DeSchon (ISI), Martin Gross (DCA),
`Phill Gross (NRI), Charles Hedrick (Rutgers), Van Jacobson (LBL),
`John Klensin (MIT), Mark Lottor (SRI), Milo Medin (NASA), Bill
`Melohn (Sun Microsystems), Greg Minshall (Kinetics), Jeff Mogul
`(DEC), John Mullen (CMC), Jon Postel (ISI), John Romkey (Epilogue
`Technology), and Mike StJohns (DCA). The following also made
`significant contributions to particular areas: Eric Allman
`(Berkeley), Rob Austein (MIT), Art Berggreen (ACC), Keith Bostic
`(Berkeley), Vint Cerf (NRI), Wayne Hathaway (NASA), Matt Korn
`(IBM), Erik Naggum (Naggum Software, Norway), Robert Ullmann
`(Prime Computer), David Waitzman (BBN), Frank Wancho (USA), Arun
`Welch (Ohio State), Bill Westfield (Cisco), and Rayan Zachariassen
`(Toronto).
`We are grateful to all, including any contributors who may have
`been inadvertently omitted from this list.
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 12]
`
`RFC1123 APPLICATIONS LAYER --GENERAL October 1989
`
`2. GENERAL ISSUES
`This section contains general requirements that may be applicable to
`all application-layer protocols.
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 12 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 13 of 97
`
`2.1 Host Names and Numbers
`The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
`[DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
`restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
`letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal
`syntax.
`Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and
`SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.
`Whenever a user inputs the identity of an Internet host, it SHOULD
`be possible to enter either (1) a host domain name or (2) an IP
`address in dotted-decimal ("#.#.#.#") form. The host SHOULD check
`the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before
`looking it up in the Domain Name System.
`DISCUSSION:
`This last requirement is not intended to specify the complete
`syntactic form for entering a dotted-decimal host number;
`that is considered to be a user-interface issue. For
`example, a dotted-decimal number must be enclosed within
`"[ ]" brackets for SMTP mail (see Section 5.2.17). This
`notation could be made universal within a host system,
`simplifying the syntactic checking for a dotted-decimal
`number.
`If a dotted-decimal number can be entered without such
`identifying delimiters, then a full syntactic check must be
`made, because a segment of a host domain name is now allowed
`to begin with a digit and could legally be entirely numeric
`(see Section 6.1.2.4). However, a valid host name can never
`have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
`highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
`2.2 Using Domain Name Service
`Host domain names MUST be translated to IP addresses as described
`in Section 6.1.
`Applications using domain name services MUST be able to cope with
`soft error conditions. Applications MUST wait a reasonable
`interval between successive retries due to a soft error, and MUST
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 13]
`
`RFC1123 APPLICATIONS LAYER --GENERAL October 1989
`
`allow for the possibility that network problems may deny service
`for hours or even days.
`An application SHOULD NOT rely on the ability to locate a WKS
`record containing an accurate listing of all services at a
`particular host address, since the WKS RR type is not often used
`
`file:///C:/Users/jklayman/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/HTU2OCLM.htm
`
`6/15/2013
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1010-Page 13 of 97
`
`

`
`Page 14 of 97
`
`by Internet si

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket