1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc962.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc962.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6fa3875
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc962.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+Network Working Group                                    M. A. Padlipsky
+Request for Comments: 962                                  Mitre-Bedford
+                                                           November 1985
+
+                              TCP-4 Prime
+
+
+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.
+
+DISCUSSION
+
+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 the window, if I'm remembering that part right--and please be
+aware that I'm not bothering to confirm recollections because I don't
+want to pretend that this is the spec: it's just meant to be the
+concept, in TV talk.  (On the NYS emitting side, presumably you just
+drop right into ack_expected state--or whatever the right name is--after
+setting an appropriate bit that'll get you to fiddle the ISN if you take
+a timeout.)   Maybe you even fiddle the ISNs more elaborately, to allow
+for several false starts rather than "two strikes and you're out," and
+maybe we take some spurious segment hits if SNs get suitably balled up,
+but if you really think handshaking is too expensive then that's the way
+the premise crumbles.
+
+
+Padlipsky                                                       [Page 1]
+
+
+
+RFC 962                                                    November 1985
+TCP-4 Prime
+
+
+Speaking of graceless closes
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Padlipsky                                                       [Page 2]
+