doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 59 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9e0af6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                   Stephen M. Wolfe
+Request for Comments: 38                                        UCLA CCN
+                                                           20 March 1970
+
+                      Comments on Network Protocol
+                            from NWG/RFC #36
+
+   The proposed protocol does not allow for the possible multiplexing of
+   connections over links.
+
+   Generally, this presents no problem, but it might cause loading
+   restrictions in the future. Two cases where routing multiple
+   connections over the same link are apparent:
+
+         a) Where a user has several high speed connections, such as
+            between processes that transmit files over the network.
+            Assigning these connections to the same link limits the
+            percentage of network resources that may be used by that
+            user. This becomes particularly important when several
+            store-and-forward IMP's are used by the network to effect
+            the communication.
+         b) When two hosts each have their own independent network and
+            desire to allow access to the other hosts's network over
+            the ARPA net, a shortage of links may develop. Again, the
+            assignment of several connections to the same link could
+            help solve the problem.
+
+   The following changes in the protocol would make possible the future
+   use of multiplexed links. It is not necessary to add the
+   multiplexing, itself, to the protocol at this time.
+
+         a) The END and RDY must specify relevant sockets in addition to
+            the link number. Only the local socket name need be
+            supplied.
+         b) Problems arise with the RSM and SPD commands. Should they
+            refer to an entire link, or just to a given connection?
+            Since there is a proposal to modify the RFNM to accommodate
+            these commands, it might be better to add another set of
+            commands to block and unblock a connection, but I am not
+            convinced that that is the best solution.
+         c) The destintation socket must be added to the header of each
+            message on the data link. Presumably this would consist of
+            32 bits immediately after the header and before the marking.
+
+       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+         [ into the online RFC archives by Karl Reinsch 1/97 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 1]
+