RFC 549

Network Working Group                                          Anonymous
Request for Comments: 549      Center for Advanced Computation, U of Ill
NIC: 17795                                               15-17 July 1973


Sunday evening, 15 July

   The meeting came to order around 1930, Jim Michener presiding.  After
   introductions, an agenda was constructed for the rest of the meeting.

   Elaine Thomas distributed copies of an Alternative Network Graphics
   Protocol for attendees to read overnight prior to discussion.

   Because some individuals were absent who had definitely indicated
   that they were coming Monday morning, the meeting was adjourned at
   2030 after deciding to meet at 0930 the next morning.

Monday Morning/Afternoon, 16 July

   The meeting was called to order at 0930

   Jim Michener distributed an outline of a paper describing desirable
   facilities for the use of two dimensional input devices with a
   hierarchically structured display program.

   Ken Victor distributed copies of RFC 553: A Proposed Network
   Text/Graphics Protocol. (LJOURNAL,17810,)

   Ken Pogran described the history of the NGG and how the "levels"
   approach of RFC 493 came about.  In particular, the "level 0"
   protocol was an attempt to define something to experiment with, but
   with the thought that it should be possible to imbed "level 0"
   meaningfully in any later protocol.

   Reports of Network Graphics Experiences

      Jon Jervert described the installation at CAD/CAM (Fort Monmouth).
      They have a spectrum of display terminals and have tried several
      via a Telnet connection to MIT-DMCG.  They experienced
      unacceptable slowness with a 300 Baud bandwidth.

      Austin Henderson described an Air Traffic Control experiment in
      which the simulator receives codes describing changes in state and
      generates descriptions of the air space (region) being controlled

                                                                [Page 1]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

      and aircraft position and velocity.  These descriptions are highly
      encoded--they are not pictures in any general sense.  The rate at
      which the simulation proceeded was adequate.

      Jim Michener described the results of an experiment in which the
      E&S LDS-1 at MIT-DMCG was used to generate stylus inking input for
      a character recognition program at SDC.  The experiment was
      plagued with difficulties including bugs in SDC's NCP and
      scheduling of experimental/debugging sessions.  When the
      experiment was finally terminated (due to planned extensive
      hardware modifications at DMCG) a clear understanding had not yet
      emerged, but apparently network transmission delays had been
      experienced of up to 20 seconds.

      Dan Cohen described an Aircraft Flight Simulator which interacts
      with a user at the Harvard PDP-1.  The simulation takes place on a
      PDP-10.  Network traffic is approximately 200 bits from the PDP-1
      to the PDP-10 and several thousand bits in the opposite direction.
      It has been found that at least 5 updates are required per second
      to give the "pilot" an adequate feeling of control.  The Harvard
      PDP-10 and one at BBN have been used, the latter at 6 AM to avoid
      loading problems.

      John Pickens described UCSB's status regarding output in level 0
      Network Graphics Protocol (NGP-0).

      Steve Bunch reported that he has an Imlac monitor which accepts
      NGP-0 directly.  Programs have been developed at CCN (using
      subroutine packages modeled after plotter packages) which build
      files containing pictures in NGP-0.  Other programs output the
      pictures either to a Gould plotter or a storage display (in device
      specific code) or to an Imlac (in NGP-0 form).

      Steve Holmgren briefly described a Fancy Arpa Network Graphics
      System (FANGS) under development at UCSD.

   Discussion of Modifications in the Graphics Protocol

      David Egli reported that he and Jim Foley (of Univ. of North
      Carolina) thought that the graphics protocol should have the
      ability to replace items, and that 3 dimensional data should be
      allowable.  Jim Foley also thinks that a subpicture call should be
      able to specify a rate of rotation, scaling, and translation, in
      addition to initial values for these.

      An extended coffee break followed to allow perusal of the
      documents distributed.

                                                                [Page 2]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

      Elaine Thomas summarized her protocol proposal for a
      hierarchically structured, editable display file.

      Discussion related to the levels approach of RFC 493 concluded
      that levels were inappropriate; we would henceforth think in terms
      of negotiable options.

      Ken Victor stressed that NLS was particularly desirous of being
      able to make use of the graphics protocol; that was the reason for
      their developing RFC 553.

      Ken Pogran observed that a structures display system as is being
      proposed is more a distributed graphics system than a protocol,
      and that he thought this a good idea.  General consensus agreed
      with him.

      Jim Michener described proposals for input.  He emphasized the
      necessity of transmitting position information in figure
      coordinates as opposed to screen coordinates or top level figure

      Bob Sproul described two different ways in which a graphics
      application in a serving host can communicate to a using host
      controlling a display device.

         If the using host has complex enough software or hardware, a
         structured definition of the display may be sent.

            A structured display definition consists of figures (also
            called pictures or groups) which consist of units.  A unit
            is either a call to another figure or a collection of one or
            more text or graphic commands. (Other special purpose units
            may exist, also.) Figures and units have names and may be
            created, replaced and deleted (and other things).

      A simpler scheme for the using host is that transformed segmented
      display information be sent across the network.

      Segments have names and can be individually created, replaced and

      Either the application works directly in terms of segments, or it
      works in terms of a structures display definition and software at
      the serving host has the responsibility of evaluating the
      transformations and the sub-figure calls.

                                                                [Page 3]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

         It seems likely that such transformation software might have to
         exist at the serving host anyway if that host has any graphics
         terminals of small to moderate capability.

      It was agreed to restrict our attention to the simpler
      "transformed-segmented" scheme, and delay consideration of the
      "hierarchically structured" scheme until another meeting.

         It seemed to the meeting that a significant number of
         applications would need nothing more powerful than a segmented

      One desirable mechanism is an "end batch of updates" command.  It
      can help optimize the use of a storage terminal and it can let a
      user program causes fixes to occur on a refresh tube all at once.

   After lunch, Ira Cotton pointed out that it would be easy enough to
   allow NGP-0 to be upward compatible with a segmented, transformed
   scheme.  Bob Sproul agreed and said that that was a good argument for
   sending only device independent data on the net. (This idea was
   modified in discussion on Tuesday.)

   Ken Victor discussed TTY units, a mechanism for displaying characters
   which are "unescorted" i.e., are not part of a graphics "text"
   command.  In particular they are for spontaneous messages from the
   operating system (like "out of funds" or "going down in 5 min").
   General discussion was undecided on whether TTY units should really
   be part of a graphics protocol. (This was later decided

      It was noted that unescorted characters coming from the serving
      host could probably be handled, but that those coming from the
      using host might not be.

Discussion of Network Connection for Graphics

   A graphics connection may start out with a Telnet connection.  We
   will request a DO GRAPHICS telnet option.

   Multiplexing on the Telnet connection vs using a separate connection

      Dan Cohen stated that his Flight Simulator uses a second pair.

      Alex McKenzie pointed out that some hosts have only "read and
      block" input commands, not "read and continue".  This means we
      cannot demand to have separate connection pairs with graphics on
      one and telnet-type information on the other.

                                                                [Page 4]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

      Jim Hansen called for a show of hands of preferences: NLS was the
      only site against using multiple connection.  Several sites were
      against multiplexing graphics information on the Telnet
      connection.  Issues included:

         It is easier to merge two streams at the user than to split one
         into two.  The latter requires "smart" programming.

         TIP users may lose if multiple connections are required.

         It should be possible to do it on one connection.

         In summary: two connections are better than one, the number
         shall be negotiated over the Telnet connection.

      Ira Cotton asked for a discussion of connection initiation other
      than via a Telnet connection.  It was agreed that we did not know
      enough at this time to specify this and that it was a matter for

   Someone commented that what we have is a Network Virtual Graphics
   Terminal which has a Network Virtual Keyboard and a Network Virtual
   Printer (in the Telnet sense) and a Network Virtual Display Unit.
   The printer and the display unit may be the same.

   Ira Cotton announced that Jim Foley (of Univ. of North Carolina) is
   planning to have a workshop on machine independent graphics under the
   auspices of SIGGRAPH in Washington D.C. around mid-April (cherry
   blossom time).

Discussion of Graphics Input

      Dan Cohen summarized the use of input in his flight simulator:
      since it comprises only approximately 200 bits in toto, all
      switches, knobs, and stylus position are transmitted.  This takes
      place about five times per second.

      Austin Henderson described the input facilities on the LL TX-2.

         Attentions are enabled.  What information will be desired when
         a particular attention occurs is described at the time the
         attention is enabled.

         When an attention occurs, the system records the desired
         information in a queue for the application program.

         When the application program is next scheduled it examines the
         queue and responds as it sees fit.

                                                                [Page 5]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

      It was generally agreed to adopt the TX-2 strategy.  Input devices
      will not be enabled unless the server does so.

         No restriction is placed on any "lies" the using host wishes to
         make regarding disguising one device as another.

      Network connections for input follow the same rules as for output.

      What input attentions are implemented at the using host may be
      determined by the serving host in response to an inquiry.

      Inking will be provided by the using host (but only one inking
      input can be specified at a time; no buffering ahead shall be done
      by the using host).

      Tracking means the feedback of the current two dimensional input
      device position to the user.

         This is automatically turned on by Inking, Positioning, and
         Targeting (hitting) attentions.

   What data are reported at the time of an attention is specified by
   the application at the server when the attention is enabled.

   Types of attentions were listed and also what additional optional
   information could be specified with each.

   Deactivating Inputs was discussed.

      It is possible for the application to explicitly deactivate an

      When an attention is enabled it shall be possible to specify when
      it should be deactivated.  Three modes were mentioned: Never
      turned off (until the application explicitly does so), turned off
      when it occurs (self-destruct), turned off when any attention

      The need for a synchronization message was agreed upon.

   It was agreed that the serving host - using host relationship would
   be one of master - slave.  Among other things, the using host would
   never volunteer input information which the serving host
   (application) had not asked for.

   It was decided to meet the next morning at 0830

   The meeting adjourned about 1830

                                                                [Page 6]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

Monday Evening, 16 July

   About 2030 seven of us met in Ken Victor's room

   Bob Sproul led the meeting and kept track of the various aspects of
   the protocol.

   Protocol topics which had been discussed during the day's meeting
   were covered again.  Most aspects were firmed up based on the day's
   discussions.  Several topics were identified for discussion in the

   Operations on and attributes of segments were defined.

   The server should be able to enquire for various information from the
   using host.

      Whether the using host has all the features implemented (which the
      application needs).

      What input devices the human has at his disposal.

      What sort of terminal is being used, not so as to send device
      specific code to it, but so that the application does not try to
      use some graphics programming technique on a terminal which can
      not handle it (e.g., some sort of dynamics on a storage tube).

   The server may request that the using host report what segments have
   been defined, their status, and what is contained in then.  This is
   good for debugging, and also provides a limited facility of building
   a picture then dumping it to some storage medium other than a
   graphics device.

   It was pointed out that the effect of multiple changes in the display
   (replacing, inserting and deleting segments) should occur "all at
   once" when an "end batch of updates" command is received by the using

      For a refreshed display, this means keeping old and new copies of
      segments until the "batch" command is received.

      This rule may be waived if storage limitations dictate.

                                                                [Page 7]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

   There was considerable discussion on input.  It was felt to be the
   least firm of any aspects of the protocol.

   The meeting broke up around 0030?

Tuesday Morning/Afternoon, 17 July

   Bob Sproul presented the results of the previous evening's discussion
   to the whole meeting.

   The features required of a graphics user program under the proposed
   protocol were divided into three classes:

      Required features included segment manipulation, primitive
      graphics output operations, and response to queries from the
      server regarding what is implemented at the using host, what input
      devices the human has available, etc.

      Optional features included TTY units, reporting the contents of a
      segment back to the server at his request.

      Experimental features included Input.

         It was assumed that after some experience, experimental
         features would become either required or optional.

      A full list of required, optional, and experimental features will
      be issued as a supplement to the description of the protocol.

   A graphics server program need only implement those features which
   applications at that site make use of.

   There was some discussion regarding how and when the graphics
   protocol should be published.

      The protocol is still regarded as experimental, and we wouldn't
      want any site to assume otherwise, to their later dismay.

      Some worry was expressed about finally presenting this protocol to
      the Network Community in a form that would not frighten too many

      Ira Cotton advised us to include a glossary.

      Bob Sproul will put an initial version (skeleton) of a description
      of the graphics protocol for transformed-segmented scheme into NLS
      and will invite everybody in the group to edit it (in normal NLS

                                                                [Page 8]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

         When one does editing normally, one's ident, the date and the
         time are associated with each statement one touches.  This
         information can be seen via the viewspec (capital) K.

   There was some discussion of whether Level 0 NGP could be imbedded in
   the Transformed-segmented graphics protocol.

      One unfortunate part of NGP-0 was that an End-Picture the is not
      explicitly required in order to see something.  If it were
      required, then it could act like an end-batch-of-updates command.

         UCSB assumes that NGP-0 works like a storage tube.  They append
         a new function plot to an existing picture never having sent an
         End-Picture operation.

      This ability to append in a storage tube fashion struck the
      processors of refresh tubes as quite a drawback, because of
      implementation difficulties.

      It was decided to allow a using site to have NGP-0 compatibility,
      but not to require it.

         At least the NGP-0 opcodes would not be reused.

   Except for the End-Picture problem, and possibly also a coordinate
   system problem (coordsys), NGP-0 can be imbedded in the transformed-
   segmented protocol with the entire NGP-0 picture corresponding to a
   single segment.

   The following sites hope to achieve implementations of the
   experimental segmented protocol:

      UCSB hopes to have a server running for OLS and Signal Analysis
      (speech processing).

      SRI-ARC hopes to have NLS operate in this protocol.

      MIT-DMCG may have some simple serving programs.

      Several people plan to implement user programs, at least as far as
      the required features go.

   (coordsys) A discussion arose concerning what coordinate system
   should be used in sending graphics output primitives from the server
   to the user.

      The following problems were addressed:

                                                                [Page 9]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

         What happens if the display segment terminal screen area to be
         used by the application is not rectangular?

         What happens if the basic unit delta X is not the same as the
         unit delta y? The application might want a 45 degree line to
         really be at 45 degrees.

      Various answers to the first question:

      Use the largest square within the rectangle (centered?, adjusted
      to the left, top, right, or bottom?)

      Use the smallest square surrounding the rectangle. (How is the
      rectangle positioned in the square?)

      NGP-0 standard coordinates (-1/2 to +1/2) used and mapped into the
      whole rectangle.

      The user reports left, bottom, right, and top physical coordinates
      and the server sends coordinates within the range given.

         This is compatible with the attitude that the transformed (!)
         segmented graphics data are sent.

         It is also saves the using host (which might be an Imlac) from
         doing a multiply.

   John Pickens observed that if a graphics server for a finicky
   application transmits characters as strokes, then the application is
   assured of having the characters positioned in exactly the right
   place (e.g., for a numeric label on a tic mark on the axis of a
   graph.  If characters are sent as text (not strokes) positioning is
   not necessarily guaranteed.

   Ken Victor and Jim Michener will look into ways of keeping the NGG
   apprised of progress (in terms of what sites have
   experimental/operational graphics protocol servers or user programs)
   using a pointer file in the NIC.

   The next NGG meeting is tentatively scheduled for the first Sunday in
   February 73, at 8PM.  It will either be at the NIC or partly there
   and partly at Xerox PARC.

   The meeting was adjourned at 1500.

                                                               [Page 10]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

Appendix: Meeting Participants/ Affiliation/ Online mailing address/
   Attendance (S=Sunday, M=Monday day, E=Monday Evening, T=Tuesday)

   Steve Bunch     ILL-ANTS

   Dan Cohen     Harvard

   Ira Cotton     National Bureau of Standards
      NBS-TIP@NIC attention Ira Cotton

   John Day     ILL-ANTS

   David Egli     CAD/CAM (Fort Monmouth)

   Jim Hansen     ILL-ANTS

   Jim Hart      NASA/Ames

   Austin Henderson     Lincoln Labs
      DAH@TX2 or DAH@BBN

   Steve Holmgren     ILL-ANTS

   John Jervert     CAD/CAM (Fort Monmouth)

   Alex McKenzie     BBN
      AAM in the journal or MCKENZIE@SRI-ARC

   James Michener     MIT-DMCG
      JCM in the journal or JCM@DMCG

                                                               [Page 11]

RFC 549               Minutes of Network Graphics        15-17 July 1973

   John Pickens     UCSB
      JRP in the journal or UCSB@ISI (attn: John Pickens)

   Ken Progran     MIT-Multics
      Pogran.CompNet at MIT-MULTICS

   Bob Sproul XEROX

   Elaine Thomas     BBN

   Ken Victor     SRI-ARC

         [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
               [ into the online RFC archives by Via Genie ]

                                                               [Page 12]