As per Relevance of the word congestion, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group S.
Request for Comments: 2556 Harvard
Category: Informational March 1999
OSI connectionless transport services on
of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved
RFC 1240, "OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP",
published as a Proposed Standard in June 1991 but at this time
do not seem to be any implementations which follow RFC 1240.
addition there is a growing concern over using UDP-based
protocols in environments where congestion is a possibility
1. Use of RFC 1240
A message was sent to the IETF list in October 1998 seeking
information on the actual use of the technology described in
1240. A number of responses were received, including from
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the keeper
the OSI protocols. None of these messages pointed to any current
for this technology. Most of the messages which made
recommendation did recommend that RFC 1240 be moved to historic
2. Responsiveness to
Since 1991 there has been a great deal of experience with
complexities of dealing with congestion in the Internet.
control algorithms have been improved but there is still
underway to further understand the issues. In this environment
UDP-based protocol is somewhat worrisome since quite
people who use UDP-based protocols invent their own reliability
congestion control functions which may not include the results of
current state of the art. This leads to a dange r of
collapse with potentially quite serious consequences for the
in which it is run. See RFC 896 for a discussion of
Bradner Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
collapse
In the case of RFC 1240, the authors seemed to assume that if
level of reliability was needed in an RFC 1240 environment that
reliability algorithms and the congestion control algorithms
would then be required would reside in the OSI protocols running
the UDP transport. It is far from clear that any
advantages of running over UDP would not be eclipsed by
difficulties experienced in trying to create a reasonable
control algorithm. Implementers would likely find that running
TCP as RFC 2126 describes is the better choice
3.
Due to the lack of use of the technology described in RFC 1240
the issues surrounding congestion control in the Internet, RFC 1240
should be reclassified as Historic and its implementation
discouraged
4. Security
This type of non-protocol document does not directly effect
security of the Internet
5.
RFC 896 Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984.
RFC 1240 Shue, C., Haggerty, W. and K. Dobbins, "OSI
transport services on top of UDP: Version 1.", RFC 1240
June 1991.
RFC 2126 Pouffary, Y. and A. Young, "ISO Transport Service on top
TCP (ITOT)", RFC 2126, March 1997.
Bradner Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
6. Author's
Scott
Harvard
1350 Mass Ave, rm 876
Cambridge,
02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.
Bradner Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2556 RFC 1240 to Historic March 1999
7. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Bradner Informational [Page 4]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
