TCP-4 prime (RFC0962)
Original Publication Date: 1985-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-14
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
This memo is in response to Bob Braden's call for a transaction oriented protocol (RFC-955), and continues the discussion of a possible transaction oriented transport protocol. This memo does not propose a standard.
Network Working Group M. A. Padlipsky Request for Comments: 962 Mitre-Bedford November 1985
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This memo continues the discussion of a possible transaction oriented transport protocol. This memo does not propose a standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
In response to Bob Braden’s call for a transaction oriented protocol (RFC-955), the following thoughts come to mind:
o The perceived problem is that connection set-up and tear-down take too long.
o Other aspects of TCP’s reliability/robustness approach are presumably still desirable.
o We have some spare command bits in the TCP header, and I trust that there’s still a version number field.
o So why not add NYS (no-way handshake) and NIF (graceless close) commands to TCP and leave everything else as was (except for the version, of course)?
Philosophically, that might be somewhat at variance with "the spirit of TCP," but pragmatically it ought to do the trick. Some careful crafting might be required for ISN handling with NYS, but my guess is that if you have to resend the first/possibly only segment you just pretend you’re all of a sudden in the middle of SN space (initially you start at the bottom of it) and when it sees the funny ISN the NYS handler knows it should dequeue anything it might have had pending for (re)transmission and start fresh, assuming that if anything gets through to the starting side belatedly it’ll get chucked because of being well outside the left edge of...