Browse Prior Art Database

Report of the Protocol Workshop, 12 October 1971 (RFC0295) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003492D
Original Publication Date: 1972-Jan-02
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 3 page(s) / 5K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Postel: AUTHOR


IMP-Host Protocol

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 53% of the total text.

NWG/RFC #295 JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35 8355

Protocol Workshop Report

Report of the Protocol Workshop

12 October, 1971

By Jon Postel.


This is a report on the decisions reached at the protocol workshop

held in conjunction with the Network Working Group meeting held in

Cambridge from 10 to 14 October, 1971.

The workshop addressed itself to protocols of four types: IMP-Host,

Host-Host, Initial Connection, and Process-Process.

IMP-Host Protocol

The idea of IMP provided status reports to be exchanged via new

IMP-Host protocol messages was discussed and rejected because it was

felt that the level of state information which could be reported was

not sufficient to be worth the trouble of implementing this mechanism.

Host-Host Protocol

The Host-Host Protocol was discussed and several problems were brought

to light, among them were the following listed together with the

group's recommendations.

The GVB - RET mechanism may prove useful sometime in the

future so it will be retained though no one appears to be

using it now, however spontaneous RET commands are

explicitly prohibited.

The ECO - ERP commands are useful and should be supported,

but spontaneous ERP commands are explicitly prohibited. A

further restriction is that a second ECO will not be sent

until the first ECO has been answered. Note that any of

the following may be an answer to an ECO: ERP, RST,

"Destination dead", or "Incomplete Transmission".

The RST - RRP commands are useful, but the proper use of

these commands for determining the status of host software

is still open for discussion (please direct comments to Jon

Postel), however spontaneous RRP commands are explicitly


NWG/RFC #295 JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35 8355

Protocol Workshop Report

The problem of unmatched CLS commands are discussed and four

"solutions" were proposed:

Hold forever

Send a RST and clear the entry

Clear the entry and possibly mess up a future connection

Assign socket numbers in a sequential fashion to reduce

the possibility of confusion and clear the entry.

Note that the first two suggestions follow the protocol while the last

two do not.

The idea of flow control on the control link was suggested. A Request

for Comments is to be prepared exploring this idea more fully.

The usefulness of the ERR command is compromised if the receiver

mearly throws it out. Thus ERR's are to be logged, if at all

possible, and checked out with the sendi...