Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA!DCP
From: DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <860514110721.9.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 11:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: FIREBIRD.860514110721.9.DCP
Posted: Wed May 14 11:07:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 22:49:20 EDT
References: <860514-023737-4874@Xerox>
Sender: jsc@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: Wed, 14 May 86 02:37:25 PDT
    From: Murray.pa@Xerox.COM

    I like your second suggestion, but somebody is bound to ignore it
    because it takes an extra packet to get started.


For reference, I suggest people read the documentation for the CHAOSNET
protocol, MIT A.I. Memo 628.  Basically, CHAOSNET wins in the connection
initiation methodology and the IP-class of protocols lose.  Small fields
(read: numbers) that require a number czar make ease of extension very
difficult.  In chaos it is easy to say "I want to invent a protocol
called RESET-TIME-SERVER" because the name of the protocol can also be
the contact name used in the RFC (SYN, for TCP folks).

I have a feeling TP4 loses in this respect as well.