doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 59 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc161.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc161.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cfc2fa6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc161.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        A. Shoshani
+Request for Comments: 161                                            SDC
+NIC #6772                                                    19 May 1971
+
+
+              A SOLUTION TO THE RACE CONDITION IN THE ICP
+
+   In NWG/RFC #143 a race condition in the ICP was described and a
+   solution was suggested.  The problem arises because the Host-Host
+   protocol does not specify what the NCP should do when it gets more
+   than one request of STR (or RTS) to the same socket.  As a result
+   this decision depends on the particular implementation: some may
+   queue these requests (SDC for example), some will refuse a request if
+   the socket is already connected (UCLA for example), etc.
+
+   The solution is not to change the Host-Host protocol, but find a
+   third level ICP which does not depend on this issue.  Such a solution
+   is the following: the INITs from server to user and user to server
+   ((S5), (S6), (U5), (U6) on page 3 in RFC #143) should use another
+   socket -- say U+2 and U+3.  The sequences in RFC #143 would be:
+
+      Server                             User
+      ------                             ----
+      (S1) LISTEN(L,32)                  (U1) INIT(U,L,32)
+      (S2) [wait for match]              (U2)
+      (S3) SEND(L,S)                     (U3) RECEIVE(U,S)
+      (S4) CLOSE(L)                      (U4) CLOSE(U)
+      (S5) INIT(S,U+3,Bu)                (U5) INIT(U+3,S,Bu)
+      (S6) INIT(S+1,U+2,Bs)              (U6) INIT(U+2,S+1,Bs)
+
+
+This solution will solve the problems pointed out in RFC #143 without
+any assumptions made about the NCP implementation.  The solution in RFC
+#143 assumes that the NCP can notify a process when a command (e.g.,
+close) comes in, which is implementation dependent.
+
+
+
+
+       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+          [ into the online RFC archives by Alan Ford 08/99]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Shoshani                                                        [Page 1]
+