1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1025.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1025.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..70e8728
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1025.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          J. Postel
+Request for Comments: 1025                                           ISI
+                                                          September 1987
+
+
+                          TCP AND IP BAKE OFF
+
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo describes some of the procedures, scoring, and tests used
+   in the TCP and IP bake offs held in the early development of these
+   protocols.  These procedures and tests may still be of use in testing
+   newly implemented TCP and IP modules.  Distribution of this memo is
+   unlimited.
+
+Introduction
+
+   In the early days of the development of TCP and IP, when there were
+   very few implementations and the specifications were still evolving,
+   the only way to determine if an implementation was "correct" was to
+   test it against other implementations and argue that the results
+   showed your own implementation to have done the right thing.  These
+   tests and discussions could, in those early days, as likely change
+   the specification as change the implementation.
+
+   There were a few times when this testing was focused, bringing
+   together all known implementations and running through a set of tests
+   in hopes of demonstrating the N squared connectivity and correct
+   implementation of the various tricky cases.  These events were called
+   "Bake Offs".
+
+   An early version of the list of tests included here appears in IEN-69
+   of October 1978.  A demonstration of four TCP implementations was
+   held at the Defense Communication Engineering Center in Reston,
+   Virginia on 4 December 1978, and reported in IEN-70 of December 1978.
+   A bake off of six implementations was held 27-28 January 1979 at
+   USC-Information Sciences Institute in Marina del Rey, California and
+   reported in IEN-77 of February 1979.  And a distributed bake off was
+   held in April 1980 over the network and reported in IEN-145 of May
+   1980.
+
+   The following section reproduces (with very slight editing) the
+   procedure, tests, and scoring of the April 1980 Bake Off.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1025                  TCP and IP Bake Off             September 1987
+
+
+Procedure
+
+   This is the procedure for the TCP and IP Bake Off.  Each implementor
+   of a TCP and IP is to perform the following tests and to report the
+   results.  In general, this is done by using a test program or user
+   Telnet program to open connections to your own or other TCP
+   implementations.
+
+   Some test are made more interesting by the use of a "flakeway".  A
+   flakeway is a purposely flakey gateway.  It should have control
+   parameters that can be adjusted while it is running to specify a
+   percentage of datagrams to be dropped, a percentage of datagrams to
+   be corrupted and passed on, and a percentage of datagrams to be
+   reordered so that they arrive in a different order than sent.
+
+   Many of the following apply for each distinct TCP contacted (for
+   example, in the Middleweight Division there is a possibility of 20
+   points for each other TCP in the Bake Off).
+
+   Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced.  No points will be awarded if
+   the checksum test is disabled.
+
+      Featherweight Division
+
+         1 point for talking to yourself (opening a connection).
+
+         1 point for saying something to yourself (sending and receiving
+         data).
+
+         1 point for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
+         connection without crashing).
+
+         2 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
+         TCP.
+
+         5 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.
+
+      Middleweight Division
+
+         2 points for talking to someone else (opening a connection).
+
+         2 points for saying something to someone else (sending and
+         receiving data).
+
+         2 points for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
+         connection without crashing).
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1025                  TCP and IP Bake Off             September 1987
+
+
+         4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
+         TCP.
+
+         10 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.
+
+      Heavyweight Division
+
+         10 points for being able to talk to more than one other TCP at
+         the same time (multiple connections open and active
+         simultaneously with different TCPs).
+
+         10 points for correctly handling urgent data.
+
+         10 points for correctly handling sequence number wraparound.
+
+         10 points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze"
+         packet (AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test
+         segment, et al.).  That is, correctly handle a segment with the
+         maximum combination of features at once (e.g., a SYN URG PUSH
+         FIN segment with options and data).
+
+         30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows.  (That is,
+         operate a connection until one TCP or the other crashes, the
+         surviving TCP has KOed the other.  Legal blows are segments
+         that meet the requirements of the specification.)
+
+         20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows.  (Dirty
+         blows are segments that violate the requirements of the
+         specification.)
+
+         10 points for showing your opponents checksum test is faulty or
+         disabled.
+
+      Host & Gateway IP Division
+
+         25 points for doing fragmentation and reassembly.
+
+         15 points for doing loose source route option.
+
+         15 points for doing strict source route option.
+
+         10 points for doing return route option.
+
+         10 points for using source quench messages.
+
+         10 points for using routing advice messages.
+
+         5 points for doing something with the type of service.
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1025                  TCP and IP Bake Off             September 1987
+
+
+         5 points for doing something with the security option.
+
+         5 points for doing something with the timestamp option.
+
+         5 points for showing that a gateway forwards datagrams without
+         decreasing the time to live (showing a gateway is faulty).
+
+         5 points for showing that a gateway forwards datagrams with the
+         time to live equal zero (showing a gateway is faulty).
+
+         10 points for showing that a gateway or hosts checksum test is
+         faulty or disabled (showing a gateway is faulty).
+
+      Bonus Points
+
+         10 points for the best excuse.
+
+         20 points for the fewest excuses.
+
+         30 points for the longest conversation.
+
+         40 points for the most simultaneous connections.
+
+         50 points for the most simultaneous connections with distinct
+         TCPs.
+
+   Tests
+
+      The following tests have been identified for checking the
+      capabilities of a TCP implementation.  These may be useful in
+      attempting to KO an opponent.
+
+         1.  Single connection.  Open & close a single connection many
+             times.
+
+         2.  Multi connections.  Open several connections
+             simultaneously.  Two connections to the same socket
+             (i.e., a-b and a-c) check proper separation of data.
+
+         3.  Half Open Connection.  Open a connection, crash local TCP
+             and attempt to open same connection again.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1025                  TCP and IP Bake Off             September 1987
+
+
+         4.  Piggy-back Loop.  Open connections via Telnet.
+
+         user telnet--->TCP--->IP--->net--->IP--->TCP--->server telnet
+                                                               |
+                                                               V
+         server telnet<---TCP<---IP<---net<---IP<---TCP<---user telnet
+              |
+              V
+         user telnet--->...
+
+         5.  Maximum connections.  Open connections between a pair of
+             TCP until refused or worse.
+
+         6.  Refused connection.  Open a connection to a non-accepting
+             socket, does it get refused?
+
+         7.  Zero Window.  Try to send data to a TCP that is presenting
+             a zero window.
+
+         8.  Fire Hose.  Make many connections to data source ports, or
+             connections to a data sink and send as fast as you can.
+
+         9.  Urgent Test.  Try to send data to a user program that only
+             receives data when in urgent mode.
+
+         10. Kamikazi Segment.  Send and receive nastygrams.  A
+             nastygram is a segment with SYN, EOL, URG, and FIN on and
+             carrying one octet of data.
+
+         11. Sequence Wraparound.  Test proper functioning when sequence
+             numbers (a) pass 2**31 (i.e., go from plus to "minus") and
+             (b) pass 2**32 (i.e., go from 2**32-1 to 0).
+
+         12. Buffer size.  With buffer size not equal to one, send data
+             in segments of various sizes, use urgent occasionally.
+
+         13. Send a nastygram into a half open connection when the
+             sequence number is about to wrap around.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1025                  TCP and IP Bake Off             September 1987
+
+
+New Ideas
+
+   The above tests check for basic operation and handling of some of the
+   tricky cases.  They do not consider performance in any way, or check
+   to see if some of the recently developed ideas have been implemented.
+
+      New Mechanisms
+
+         1.  The John Nagel Procedures (RFC-896).
+
+         2.  The Van Jacobson Procedures (slow start, RTT measurements,
+             etc).
+
+         3.  The SQuID Procedures (RFC-1016).
+
+      Performance Tests
+
+         Performance tests are difficult to specify because the results
+         depend so much on the state of the environment of the test.
+         Here are a few possibilities:
+
+         1.  FTP Throughput:  Send a 1 megabyte file to a locally nearby
+             machine on an Ethernet measuring the elapsed time.
+
+         2.  FTP Throughput:  Send a 1 megabyte file to a locally nearby
+             machine on an ARPANET measuring the elapsed time.
+
+         3.  NETBLT Throughput:  Send a 1 megabyte file to a locally
+             nearby machine on an Ethernet measuring the elapsed time.
+
+         4.  NETBLT Throughput:  Send a 1 megabyte file to a locally
+             nearby machine on an ARPANET measuring the elapsed time.
+
+         5.  Character Test:  Use a test program to send a character via
+             TCP to the Echo Server (RFC-862), time the round trip (from
+             the time the character is sent until the echo is returned
+             to the test program).
+
+Appendix
+
+   For History Buffs Only:
+
+      The following item was in the original 1980 tests, but has been
+      moved to this appendix since it no longer applies.
+
+         10 points for correctly handling rubber baby buffer bumpers in
+         both directions (End of Letter sequence number adjustments).
+
+
+
+
+Postel                                                          [Page 6]
+
+\ No newline at end of file