NWG/RFC #295                             JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35  8355
Protocol Workshop Report

Report of the Protocol Workshop

  12 October, 1971

  By Jon Postel.

Introduction

  This is a report on the decisions reached at the protocol workshop
  held in conjunction with the Network Working Group meeting held in
  Cambridge from 10 to 14 October, 1971.

  The workshop addressed itself to protocols of four types: IMP-Host,
  Host-Host, Initial Connection, and Process-Process.

IMP-Host Protocol

  The idea of IMP provided status reports to be exchanged via new
  IMP-Host protocol messages was discussed and rejected because it was
  felt that the level of state information which could be reported was
  not sufficient to be worth the trouble of implementing this mechanism.

Host-Host Protocol

  The Host-Host Protocol was discussed and several problems were brought
  to light, among them were the following listed together with the
  group's recommendations.

     The GVB - RET mechanism may prove useful sometime in the
     future so it will be retained though no one appears to be
     using it now, however spontaneous RET commands are
     explicitly prohibited.

     The ECO - ERP commands are useful and should be supported,
     but spontaneous ERP commands are explicitly prohibited.  A
     further restriction is that a second ECO will not be sent
     until the first ECO has been answered.  Note that any of
     the following may be an answer to an ECO: ERP, RST,
     "Destination dead", or "Incomplete Transmission".

     The RST - RRP commands are useful, but the proper use of
     these commands for determining the status of host software
     is still open for discussion (please direct comments to Jon
     Postel), however spontaneous RRP commands are explicitly
     prohibited.



                                                               [Page 1]

NWG/RFC #295                             JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35  8355
Protocol Workshop Report

  The problem of unmatched CLS commands are discussed and four
  "solutions" were proposed:

     Hold forever

     Send a RST and clear the entry

     Clear the entry and possibly mess up a future connection

     Assign socket numbers in a sequential fashion to reduce
     the possibility of confusion and clear the entry.

  Note that the first two suggestions follow the protocol while the last
  two do not.

  The idea of flow control on the control link was suggested.  A Request
  for Comments is to be prepared exploring this idea more fully.

  The usefulness of the ERR command is compromised if the receiver
  mearly throws it out.  Thus ERR's are to be logged, if at all
  possible, and checked out with the sending site.

  The NCP document should make clear the implications of queueing or not
  queueing STR & RTS commands.

Initial Connection Protocol

  The Initial Connection Protocol (ICP) was discussed and found to be
  satisfactory however the following points were stressed:

    The socket number sent by the logger (S) must be in
    agreement with the socket numbers used in the STR & RTS
    sent by the logger.

    The implications of queueing or not queueing of RTS & STR
    commands should be made clear in the ICP document.  This is
    particularly important if the user chooses the "listen"
    option.










                                                               [Page 2]

NWG/RFC #295                             JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35  8355
  Protocol Workshop Report

Telnet Protocol

  The Telnet committee has been reactivated to consider the following
  problems:

    Clarification of the terminology half duplex, full duplex,
    character mode, line mode, ASCII, and echoing.

    Clarification of the end of line convention. Especially to
    answer the question "Should there be a special end-of-line
    character?"

    Clarification of the conditions for leaving Hide-your-input mode.

    Clarification of the operation of Break and Synch.

    Specification of a server-to-user Synch.

    Clarification of the definition of the Network Virtual Terminal.

    Preparation of a new document defining the Telnet protocol
    with the above improvements.

The protocol workshop did agree that:

 It is the servers option for disconnection to imply logout
 or not.

 It is the servers option for logout to imply disconnection
 or not.

 Extra characters used locally to fill the time for format
 effectors to take effect should not be sent over the
 network

 Synch means to examine the data stream from the current
 point to a data mark (x'80').  If any break type characters
 (e.g. etx, sub, Break) are found they are to have their
 normal effect.

 Upper and lower case are to be available to all Telnet users.

Data and File Transfer Protocol

  The Data and File Transfer Committee will report separately.



                                                               [Page 3]

NWG/RFC #295                             JBP 2-JAN-72 15:35  8355
Protocol Workshop Report

      [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
      [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]
      [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]













































                                                               [Page 4]