1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
|
Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2556 Harvard University
Category: Informational March 1999
OSI connectionless transport services on top
of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic Status
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
RFC 1240, "OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP", was
published as a Proposed Standard in June 1991 but at this time there
do not seem to be any implementations which follow RFC 1240. In
addition there is a growing concern over using UDP-based transport
protocols in environments where congestion is a possibility.
1. Use of RFC 1240 Technology
A message was sent to the IETF list in October 1998 seeking any
information on the actual use of the technology described in RFC
1240. A number of responses were received, including from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the keeper of
the OSI protocols. None of these messages pointed to any current use
for this technology. Most of the messages which made any
recommendation did recommend that RFC 1240 be moved to historic.
2. Responsiveness to Congestion
Since 1991 there has been a great deal of experience with the
complexities of dealing with congestion in the Internet. Congestion
control algorithms have been improved but there is still work
underway to further understand the issues. In this environment any
UDP-based protocol is somewhat worrisome since quite frequently
people who use UDP-based protocols invent their own reliability and
congestion control functions which may not include the results of the
current state of the art. This leads to a dange r of congestion
collapse with potentially quite serious consequences for the network
in which it is run. See RFC 896 for a discussion of congestion
Bradner Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
collapse.
In the case of RFC 1240, the authors seemed to assume that if some
level of reliability was needed in an RFC 1240 environment that the
reliability algorithms and the congestion control algorithms which
would then be required would reside in the OSI protocols running over
the UDP transport. It is far from clear that any perceived
advantages of running over UDP would not be eclipsed by the
difficulties experienced in trying to create a reasonable congestion
control algorithm. Implementers would likely find that running over
TCP as RFC 2126 describes is the better choice.
3. Conclusion
Due to the lack of use of the technology described in RFC 1240 and
the issues surrounding congestion control in the Internet, RFC 1240
should be reclassified as Historic and its implementation actively
discouraged.
4. Security Considerations
This type of non-protocol document does not directly effect the
security of the Internet.
5. References
RFC 896 Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984.
RFC 1240 Shue, C., Haggerty, W. and K. Dobbins, "OSI connectionless
transport services on top of UDP: Version 1.", RFC 1240
June 1991.
RFC 2126 Pouffary, Y. and A. Young, "ISO Transport Service on top of
TCP (ITOT)", RFC 2126, March 1997.
Bradner Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
6. Author's Address
Scott Bradner
Harvard University
1350 Mass Ave, rm 876
Cambridge, MA
02138
USA
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Bradner Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
7. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Bradner Informational [Page 4]
^L
|
