RFC 757

  A Suggested Solution to the Naming, Addressing, and Delivery
               Problem for ARPAnet Message Systems

                        Debra P. Deutsch

                        10 September 1979

                     Bolt Beranek and Newman

                        50 Moulton Street

                 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

                         (617) 491-1850
Preface                                                    Page 1


  Unlike   many   RFCs,   this   is  not  a  specification  of  a
soon-to-be-implemented protocol.  Instead this is a true  request
for  comments  on  the concepts and suggestions found within this
document, written  with  the  hope  that  its  content,  and  any
discussion  which it spurs, will contribute towards the design of
the  next  generation  of  computer-based  message  creation  and
delivery systems.

  A  number  of  people  have  made contributions to the form and
content of this document.  In particular, I would like  to  thank
Jerry   Burchfiel  for  his  general  and  technical  advice  and
encouragement, Bob Thomas for his  wisdom  about  the  TIP  Login
database  and  design of a netmail database, Ted Myer for playing
devil's  advocate,  and  Charlotte  Mooers  for   her   excellent
editorial assistance.

                                                   Debbie Deutsch

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Introduction                                               Page 2

1. Introduction

  The  current  ARPAnet  message handling scheme has evolved from
rather informal, decentralized beginnings.  Early developers took
advantage of pre-existing tools --  TECO,  FTP  --  in  order  to
implement  their  first systems.  Later, protocols were developed
to  codify  the  conventions  already  in  use.     While   these
conventions  have  been  able  to  support an amazing variety and
amount of service, they have a number of shortcomings.

  One difficulty is the naming/addressing  problem,  which  deals
with  the  need  both  to  identify the recipient and to indicate
correctly a delivery point for the message.  The current paradigm
is deficient in that it lacks a  sharp  distinction  between  the
recipient's  name  and  the  recipient's  address,  which  is the
delivery point on the net.

  The naming/addressing scheme does not allow  users  to  address
their  messages  using  human  names,  but instead forces them to
employ designations better  designed  for  machine  parsing  than
human identification.

  Another  source  of  limitations  lies  in the delivery system,
which is simply an extension of the File Transfer Protocol.   The
delivery system is fairly limited in its operation, handling only
simple transactions involving the transfer of a single message to
a  single  user  on  the destination host.  The ability to bundle
messages and the ability to fan-out messages at the foreign  host
would improve the efficiency and usefulness of the system.

  An  additional  drawback  to  the delivery system is caused, to
some extent, by the addressing scheme.  A change in  address,  or
incorrect  address  usually  causes the delivery system to handle
the message incorrectly.  While some hosts support  some  variety
of  a  mail  forwarding database (MFDB), this solution is at best
inadequate and spotty  for  providing  reliable  service  to  the
network  as  a  whole.    Because the same username may belong to
different people at different hosts, ambiguities which  may  crop
up  when  messages  are  incorrectly addressed keep even the best
MFDBs from always being able to do their job.

  This proposal envisions a system  in  which  the  identity  and
address  of  the  recipient are treated as two separate items.  A
network database supports  a  directory  service  which  supplies
correct  address  information  for all recipients.  Additionally,
the scheme allows mail delivery to be  restricted  to  authorized
users of the network, should that be a desirable feature.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 3

2. Names and Addresses

  Today's  ARPAnet  naming and addressing scheme (as specified in
RFC 733[3]) does not discriminate between the identity of a  user
and   his   address .      Both   are  expressed  the  same  way:
USERNAME@HOST.  While this  should  always  result  in  a  unique
handle for that user, it has proved to be inadequate in practice.
Users  who  change  the  location  of their mailboxes, because of
either a change in affiliation or a simple shift in  host  usage,
also  get their names changed.  If their old host employs an MFDB
the problem is not too bad.  Mail is simply forwarded on  to  the
new  address,  slightly  delayed.  Other less fortunate users who
cannot rely upon an MFDB must notify all their correspondents  of
the  change  in  address/name.    Any  mail  addressed to the old
address becomes undeliverable.  (An excellent discussion  of  the
differences between naming, addressing, and routing is found in a
paper by John Shoch [1].)

  The  desire  to  use  "real"  names  in  the  address fields of
messages is also thwarted by the current system.    An  elaborate
system  for  using  human-compatible  vs.   machine-interpretable
information has been evolved for use in message  headers .    The
most  recent  developments  indicate  that  many users would feel
happiest   if    the    real    human    name    could    appear;
machine-interpretable  information should not intrude too heavily
into the writer's work- and thought-space.

  The solution proposed here calls for a total break between  the
way  a  recipient is named or identified and the way in which his
location  is  specified.    Since  the  ARPAnet  is  a  regulated
environment,  a  unique  (and  not necessarily human-readable) ID
could be assigned to each authorized recipient of  network  mail.
This  ID  would stay with the user throughout his lifetime on the
network, through changes in address and affiliation.

  A network database  (which  could  be  derived  from  the  same
database  that  has  been  proposed  to  support TIP login) would
associate each ID with one or more addresses indicating where the
mail for that ID may be delivered.  If more than one address were

   See, for example, RFC 733's discussion  of  the  semantics  of
address  fields,  in  which  it  is  specified that the To: field
"contains the identity of the primary recipients of the message".
   See the "Syntax of General Addressee  Items"  section  of  RFC

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 4

associated  with an ID, that would indicate an ordered preference
in delivery points.  The delivery system would  attempt  delivery
to  the first addressee, and, if that failed, try the second, and
so on .  Most IDs would probably have only  one  address.    Also
associated  with each ID would be some information about the ID's
owner:  name, postal address, affiliation, phone number, etc.

  Rather than being forced to type some awkward character  string
in  order  to  name  his  correspondent, the writer would have to
supply only enough information to allow some process to determine
the unique identity of the recipient.  This information might  be
the recipient's name or anything else found in the database.

  The  access  to  this  data would also free the writer from any
need to know the location of the recipient.  Once the  unique  ID
were  known,  the  correct  location for delivery would be only a
look-up away.

2.1 A distributed database approach

  It  is  clear  that  if  the  network  database  had  only  one
instantiation  there  would  be  a tremendous contention problem.
All message traffic would be forced to query that  one  database.
This  is  extremely undesirable, both in terms of reliability and
speed.  It is also clear that requiring each host to  maintain  a
complete  local  copy  of  the  entire  network  database  is  an
undesirable and unnecessary burden on the hosts.

  A better approach would be to build  some  sophistication  into
the local delivery system, and use local mini-databases which are
based  upon  the contents of a distributed network database.  (It
may be redundant and/or partitioned, etc., but  is  probably  not
resident  on  the  local  host.)    When a local host queries the
network database about an ID (or, in  a  more  costly  operation,
asked  to  supply an ID given enough identification such as name,
etc.)  the database may be asked to return all its information on
that ID.  At this point the local host can enter all or  some  of
that  information  into a locally maintained database of its own.
It will always refer to that database first when  looking  for  a
name  or  address, only calling the network database if it cannot
find  a  local  entry.  Depending  upon  the  desired  level   of
sophistication of the local message handling programs, additional
information  may  be  added  to  that  database,  including,  for

   Multiple  addresses  might  also  be  used  to  indicate  that
multiple deliveries are desired.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 5

example, nicknames.

  The  database  might  be  shared by a cluster of hosts (such as
exist at BBN or ISI), or it might be used by  only  one.    Hosts
which  originate small amounts of message traffic might rely upon
the network database entirely.

  The structure and maintenance of the local  databases  is  left
solely  to the local hosts.  They may or may not store addresses.
It may be desirable either to garbage collect  them,  or  to  let
them  grow.  The local databases might be linked to smaller, more
specialized databases which are  owned  by  individual  users  or
groups.    These  individual databases would be the equivalent of
address books in which users  might  note  special  things  about
individuals:    interests,  last  time seen, names of associates,
etc.  The existence and scope of these databases are not mandated
by this scheme, but it does allow for them.

  The same individual databases may be used by  message  creation
programs   in   order   to  determine  the  recipient's  ID  from
user-supplied input.  For example, a user may address  a  message
to  someone  named  Nick.    The  message  creation  program  may
associate "Nick" with an ID, and hand that ID off to the delivery
system, totally removing the matter of address or formal ID  from
the user's world.

2.2 Delivery

  The delivery operation consists of three parts:

  1.  Determining  the  address  to which the message must be

  2.  Sending the message,

  3.  Processing by foreign host.

  The first step usually means looking up, in either a  local  or
the   network  database,  the  correct  address(es)  for  message
delivery, given the recipient's ID.  Should the ID not  be  known
at  the time the message is submitted for delivery, any operation
necessary to determine that ID (such as  a  call  to  either  the
local  or  network  database)  is  also performed as part of this

  The second step is not too different from what  happens  today.
The  local host establishes a connection to the foreign host.  It
is then able to send one or messages to one or more people.   The
options are:

   - Bulk mail.  Several recipients all get the same message.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 6

   - Bundled  mail.    Several  messages get sent to the same

   - A combination of the above

   - One recipient gets one message.

  The foreign host should be able to accept mail for each ID.

  The rejection of mail for a given ID by the foreign host  would
usually  indicate  an  inconsistency  between  the sender's local
database and the network database.  In this case, the local  host
updates  its  local  database  from  the  network  database,  and
attempts delivery at the "new" host.  (This is mail  forwarding.)
If  a  host  taken  from  the  network  database  is  found to be
incorrect, there is  a  problem  in  the  network  database,  and
appropriate  authorities  are  notified.    Thus, address changes
propagate out from the network database only as  the  out-of-date
information  is  referenced.    This reduces the magnitude of the
local database update problem.

  Once the foreign host recognizes the ID(s), the message(s)  may
be   transmitted   to   the   foreign   host.    Upon  successful
transmission, the job of the local host is done.

  The third  step  requires  the  foreign  host  to  process  the
message(s).   This is analogous to what may occur in a mail room.
A foreign host may have to sort  the  bundled  or  bulk  mail  it
receives.    In addition, the foreign host might perform internal
or external fan-out functions or other special functions, at  the
option of the ID owner.

  The  implemention and design of possible functions which may be
performed in the mail rooms are neither mandated  nor  restricted
by  this  delivery  scheme.  Since they are too numerous to allow
even a small portion of them to be described  here,  only  a  few
examples will be mentioned.

  Fan-out  functions  might  include placing messages in multiple
files,  sending  copies  to  one  or   more   other   users,   or
rebroadcasting  the  messages  onto  the  network.  (In that last
case, the foreign host might evaluate an ID  list,  in  much  the
same way that the ITS mail repeater broadcasts messages addressed
to certain mailboxes.)  Special functions might include automatic
hard-copy  creation  or  reply  generation, processing by various
daemons, or any other service found desirable by the host's  user
population  and  administration.    The implementation of fan-out
functions is  up  to  the  local  host,  as  are  any  additional
functions which the user population might wish of its local "mail
room".    Whatever  services  are  available,  the mail room will
distribute the mail to the correct location for each ID.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 7

2.2.1 Additional delivery options

  It may be desirable to allow mail rooms to accept a username in
place  of  an ID.  Use of a username is a less reliable method of
addressing than use of an ID.

   - A username  may  not  be  sufficiently  unambiguous  for
     getting an ID and host from the network database.

   - Since  a  recipient's  username  may change from time to
     time, there is a chance that the  username  supplied  by
     the  sender will be incorrect , or that the host may not
     recognize it.

     Because a recipient's ID  does  not  change  with  time,
     errors  such  as those caused by username changes cannot
     occur if IDs are used.  Similarities or ambiguities  can
     be discovered before delivery occurs, and the sender can
     be prompted for additional identifying information about
     his intended recipient.

   - In  an  even  worse  case,  a correct username can still
     result in an incorrect delivery when it is  paired  with
     an  incorrect  host  or  acted upon by a mail forwarding
     database .

     Because unique IDs are unambiguous, the  possibility  of
     such a situation is eliminated by the use of unique IDs.

   A particularly insidious source of addressing errors stems
from  the  inconsistent  use of (human) names and initials to
generate  usernames.  The  sender  can   easily   guess   his
recipient's  username incorrectly by using, or failing to use
a combination of initials and last name.    (For  example,  a
user  wishing  to  address  Jim  Miller at BBNA and using the
address "Miller@BBNA"  will  have  his  message  successfully
delivered to Duncan Miller at the same site.)
   The   author  has  observed  a  mail  forwarding  database
redirect messages  correctly  addressed  to  one  JWalker  to
different JWalker at another host.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Names and Addresses                                        Page 8

2.2.2 Failures

  The case in which the network database is found to be incorrect
has  already been discussed.  It may make sense to mark the entry
as "possibly in error" and to notify both  the  network  database
and the ID owner  when such a situation occurs. In this case mail
delivery  to  the  ID's owner will not occur, but this is not too
bad, considering that that is what happens today when a host does
not recognize a username.

  One additional failure mode, the loss of the  network  database
from  the  net,  must  be considered, even though a well-designed
distributed network database should be robust  enough  to  almost
rule out this possibility.

  If  such  a failure should occur, the local databases should be
able to handle most of the traffic.  What would be  lost  is  the
ability  to  add  new IDs to the network database, the ability to
change hosts for an ID, the ability to  update  local  databases,
and the ability to query the network database.  In essence, there
would be a regression to the state we are in today.

  A  well-administered  network  database  should  be  backed  up
frequently.  Should a catastrophic series  of  hardware  failures
remove  one or more of the network database's hosts from the net,
the database could be moved  elsewhere.    Such  a  change  would
entail  notification  of  all  hosts  on  which  mail originates.
Software which queries the database should be designed to be able
to easily handle such a move.

   Such notification would presumably  be  by  hardcopy  mail  or

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Relationship to TIP Login database                         Page 9

3. Relationship to TIP Login database

  A  number of references to the TIP Login problem and a database
which has been proposed as part of its solution have been made in
this note.  A series of working papers [5] written by Bob Thomas,
Paul Santos, and Jack Haverty describe an approach to TIP  Login.
In  brief,  the method is to build and maintain a distributed TIP
Login database, containing information necessary to allow  a  new
entity  called a "login-host" to decide whether or not to grant a
user access to a given TIP, and whether or not to allow the  user
to make various modifications to the database itself.

  The  TIP  login  database  is derived from a "network user data
base", which contains information above and beyond that necessary
to support TIP login.  This comprehensive database is designed to
support applications other than TIP Login, either directly or  by
means of databases derived from it.

  Contained  in  the  TIP  Login  database  are each user's login
string, a list of TIPs the user  is  authorized  to  access,  the
user's  unique  ID, his password, and any other "permissions" (in
addition to which TIPs may be accessed).  These  permissions  may
indicate  that  the user may create, delete, or modify entries in
the database, to assume other user's roles, and to what extent he
may do so.  The notion  of  permissions  as  developed  by  Steve
Warshall is discussed in an NSW memo [2].

  It  seems entirely reasonable to derive a netmail database from
the same comprehensive database that is designed to  support  TIP
Login.  The concept of a unique ID is supported by that database.
Much  of  the  required  information  for  a  netmail database is
already included, and the maintenance tools necessary  to  modify
it  seem well-suited for the purpose.  The concept of permissions
extends well to the needs of netmail.   Permissions  specific  to
network  mail  might  include, for example, the ability to modify
the delivery host list associated with a given user.

  The  mechanisms  necessary   for   the   maintenance   of   the
comprehensive  network database and its derived databases give us
a netmail database  very  inexpensively.    This  proposal  takes
advantage of that situation.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Relationship to RFC 753                                   Page 10

4. Relationship to RFC 753

  RFC  753 [4] describes an internetwork message delivery system.
Very briefly, the approach is to  locate  one  or  more  "message
processing  modules"  (or MPMs) on each network.  These MPMs pass
messages across network  boundaries,  and  are  also  capable  of
making  deliveries  to  users on the local network.  The document
also details a proposed message format, along  the  envelope  and
letter  paradigm.    An external "envelope", read by the delivery
system, allows the (unread) message to be  correctly  routed  and
delivered  to  the  proper  recipient.  Groups of messages passed
between a pair of MPMs are sent together in a "mail bag".

  This proposal differs from RFC 753  in  that  it  is  primarily
intended  to  operate  within  a  network  or  a concatenation of
networks using a common host-host protocol, e.g. TCP.  Where  RFC
753   addresses   the   problems  of  internetwork  communication
(differing  message  formats,  complex   routing,   and   correct
identification  of  the proper recipient), this note concentrates
primarily on what can be done within a single protocol.  The  two
are not incompatible.  While a general internetwork protocol must
provide  general  methods  which can be compatible with different
host-host protocols in different networks,  a  proposal  such  as
this  one  can  capitalize  on  the  capabilities, resources, and
policies of a given  catenet  (catenated  network)  such  as  the
ARPAnet/PRnet/SATNET etc.

4.1 Compatibility

  The delivery system described in RFC 753 is compatible with the
system  outlined  here.  Let's examine this for each of the three
basic delivery options performed by the MPM.  (In the  discussion
that  follows, "local networks" means a concatenation of networks
using a common host-host protocol, e.g. TCP.   "Foreign  network"
means  some  network  which  uses a different host-host protocol,
e.g. X.25. (See Figure 4-1.)

4.1.1 Outgoing message RFC 753

  The sender's process hands a message to the local network  MPM.
The message may be destined to an address on the local network or
on  a  foreign network.  In the former case, the MPM performs the
local delivery function (see "Incoming message").  In the  latter
case,  the  MPM  passes the message along to another MPM which is
"closer" to the end user.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Relationship to RFC 753                                   Page 11

      +---------+  +----------+
      |         |  |          |
      | RCC-NET |  | WIDEBAND |                .......
      |         |  |   NET    |                .     .
      +---------+  |          |                . MPM .
              * *  +----------+                .......
+---------+   * *   *  *   .......                |
|         |   +---------+  .     .           +---------+
| BBN-NET |***|         |__. MPM .  .....    |         |
|         |   | ARPANET |  .......  .   .xxxx| TELENET |
+---------+***|         |***********. G .    |         |
              +---------+***        .....    +---------+
              * *    *  *   **                            .......
       +--------+  +-------+ ***.....    +-------------+  .     .
       |        |  |       |    .   .    |             |--. MPM .
       | SATNET |  | PRNET |    . G .oooo| DIAL-UP NET |  .......
       |        |  |       |    .....    |             |
       +--------+  +-------+             +-------------+

   "Local Nets", TCP based        |    "Foreign Nets", other
 (direct addressing using IP)     |     host-host protocols

*** = TCP   xxx = X.25   ooo = other communications protocol
                        G = gateway

              Figure 4-1: The Internet Environment This proposal

  The  sender's  process  determines the proper host for delivery
given the recipient's unique ID.  If the message is  destined  to
the  local  network, delivery takes place as described earlier in
this proposal.  If the recipient is not local, the message may be
passed to an MPM for foreign delivery.  (A discussion of internet
delivery which does not  presuppose  RFC  753  implementation  is
found later in this note.)

  The  environment  in which the MPM operates does not assume any
knowledge on the part of the local networks about  addressees  on
foreign networks.  Thus there are two possibilities which arise:

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Relationship to RFC 753                                   Page 12

   - The recipient has an ID known to the local networks.

     In  this  case,  the  local  networks supply the RFC 753
     "address".  This can take place in the  local  networks'
     MPM or the user's sending or mail creation process.

   - The recipient is unknown to the local networks.

     Here   the  sender  must  supply  "mailbox"  information
     himself, either explicitly or with  help  of  his  local
     host's database.

  Thus,  outgoing  mail  as  described in this memo is compatible
with RFC 753, with the benefit of reducing the burden on the  MPM
by handling mail deliveries that are local to local networks.

4.1.2 Messages in transit

  Traffic between two MPMs is not affected by this proposal.

4.1.3 Incoming mail

  The MPM on the networks local to the recipient will have access
to  the netmail database, allowing it to translate "mailboxes" to
"addresses".  It can determine the unique ID of the recipient (if
not known), and initiate delivery to that recipient.    Here  RFC
753 and this proposal complement each other very well.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Implications of an internetwork message environment       Page 13

5. Implications of an internetwork message environment

  The  scheme described above is based upon the assumption that a
unique identifier can be assigned to each registered recipient of
mail.  Whether or not this uniqueness  can  be  guaranteed  in  a
fairly  unregulated internetwork environment is questionable.  It
is technically feasible, certainly.  The  difficulties  are  more
political, because it is necessary to gain the cooperation of the
administrators  and  user populations of foreign networks.  Let's
assume cooperation, however, and see  what  might  happen  in  an
internet environment.

5.1 Birthplaces

  Each  set  of  local  networks would have its own database, for
ease in access.  It does not seem practical to register  each  ID
in every database, however.  That would be unnecessary, and would
create  access  and  storage  problems  at the network databases.
Here the concept of a "birthplace", or ID origin, may be of use.

  While an ID does not imply where the user is now,  it  can  say
something  about  who issued it.  A simple system for determining
the address for any ID can be maintained by  having  the  issuing
network  keep  a  pointer  for  each  ID  it  issues.  One double
indirection would yield the desired address, even if the ID  were
not issued on the local nets.  A message originating on the local
nets  with  an ID which is unknown to its database can be handled
by determining the birthplace of the  ID.    An  inquiry  to  the
birthplace  database  would return a list of one or more networks
on which the ID is registered.  An inquiry to any of those  would
get  the requisite information.  All that is necessary to support
this is for the birthplace record (small enough!)   to  be  kept,
and  for  the act of registration at a given net to automatically
cause that net to notify  the  birthplace  of  the  registration.
(Conversely, a de-registration would cause a similar notification
of the birthplace.)

5.1.1 ID resolution

  The  handling  of ID resolution when the ID is not known to the
local net does not seem to have a solution simpler than  querying
foreign nets until some success is achieved.

5.1.2 Hosts in an internet environment

  The  substitution  of internet host names for simple host names
should not cause any difficulty.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Implications of an internetwork message environment       Page 14

5.1.3 Orphans

  Should a birthplace cease to exist (usually because its network
is  dismantled), it would be necessary for a second birthplace to
"adopt" the first birthplace's records.    Notification  of  this
change could be propagated throughout the internet environment in
much  the  same  way as the addition of a new birthplace would be

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Conclusions                                               Page 15

6. Conclusions

  While  ARPAnet  message systems have been amazingly successful,
there is much room for improvement in the quality and quantity of
the  services  offered.    Current  protocols  are  limiting  the
development  of  new message systems.  This paper has discussed a
means of providing the underlying support necessary for  building
a   new  generation  of  message  systems  which  can  be  better
human-engineered in  addition  to  providing  more  services  and
greater reliability.

  Critics may argue that the proposal is too radical, too much of
a  departure  from  current practice.  After all, today's message
service is extremely straightforward in design, and therefore has
comparatively few failure modes.    The  protocols  in  use  have
descended,  with  relatively  few  changes,  from  the first file
transfer and message format protocols implemented on the ARPAnet.
This makes them well understood; people are aware of  both  their
shortcomings  and  usage.  Finally, there are people who will not
feel comfortable about requiring a network database,  distrusting
the  reliability  and  questioning  the  possible  cost of such a

  On the other hand, it is undeniably true that very little  more
can  be  done  to  improve  message services while staying within
today's practices.  New message systems which  will  be  able  to
transmit  facsimile,  voice,  and  other  media  along  with text
require us to rethink message formats and do away  with  delivery
protocols  which are predicated upon the characteristics of ASCII
text.  The inception of internetwork message delivery  causes  us
to  re-evaluate  how  we  handle  messages locally.  Finally, the
USERNAME@HOST naming scheme has proved to  be  inadequate,  while
the  divorce of recipients' identities from their locations seems
a promising possibility as a replacement.

  The  ARPAnet  will  soon  have  a  distributed   database   for
supporting  TIP  Login.    Only small, incremental costs would be
associated with building and maintaining a  netmail  database  at
the same time.  It can be argued that TIP Login requires at least
the  level  of reliability required by a message delivery system.
If the TIP Login database is successful, a netmail  database  can
work, too.

  It  is  clear that we will be implementing a new set of message
format and delivery protocols in the near  future,  in  order  to
allow for multi-media messages, internetwork message traffic, and
the  like.   New message composition and delivery systems will be
built to meet those specifications  and  take  advantage  of  the
avenues  of development which they will open.  If there will ever
be an advantageous time to re-evaluate and re-design how messages
are addressed and delivered, it is now,  when  we  are  about  to
enter  upon  an  entirely  new  cycle  of message composition and

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Conclusions                                               Page 16

delivery program implementation.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
References                                                Page 17


[1]   John F. Shoch.
      Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing.
      In Proceedings, COMPCON.  IEEE Computer Society, Fall, 1979.

[2]   Stephen Warshall.
      On Names and Permissions.
      Mass. Computer Associates.  1979.

[3]   David H. Crocker, John J. Vittal, Kenneth T. Pogran,
      D. Austin Henderson, Jr.
      RFC 733, The Rand Corporation, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc,
      Massachussets Institute of Technology, Bolt Beranek and
      Newman Inc., November, 1977.

[4]   Jonathan B. Postel.
      RFC 753, Information Sciences Institute, March, 1979.

[5]   Robert H. Thomas, Paul J. Santos, and John F. Haverty.
      TIP Login Notes.
      Bolt Beranek and Newman.  1979.

RFC 757                                            September 1979
Table of Contents                                          Page i

                        Table of Contents

1. Introduction                                                 2

2. Names and Addresses                                          3

2.1 A distributed database approach                             4
2.2 Delivery                                                    5
     2.2.1 Additional delivery options                          7
     2.2.2 Failures                                             8

3. Relationship to TIP Login database                           9

4. Relationship to RFC 753                                     10

4.1 Compatibility                                              10
     4.1.1 Outgoing message                                    10
 RFC 753                                      10
 This proposal                                11
     4.1.2 Messages in transit                                 12
     4.1.3 Incoming mail                                       12

5. Implications of an internetwork message environment         13

5.1 Birthplaces                                                13
     5.1.1 ID resolution                                       13
     5.1.2 Hosts in an internet environment                    13
     5.1.3 Orphans                                             14

6. Conclusions                                                 15

RFC 757                                            September 1979
List of Figures                                           Page ii

                      List of Figures

Figure 4-1:  The Internet Environment                          10

RFC 757                                            September 1979