Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Communication protocol
View on Wikipedia
A communication protocol is a system of rules that allows two or more entities of a communications system to transmit information via any variation of a physical quantity. The protocol defines the rules, syntax, semantics, and synchronization of communication and possible error recovery methods. Protocols may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of both.[1]
Communicating systems use well-defined formats for exchanging various messages. Each message has an exact meaning intended to elicit a response from a range of possible responses predetermined for that particular situation. The specified behavior is typically independent of how it is to be implemented. Communication protocols have to be agreed upon by the parties involved.[2] To reach an agreement, a protocol may be developed into a technical standard. A programming language describes the same for computations, so there is a close analogy between protocols and programming languages: protocols are to communication what programming languages are to computations.[3] An alternate formulation states that protocols are to communication what algorithms are to computation.[4]
Multiple protocols often describe different aspects of a single communication. A group of protocols designed to work together is known as a protocol suite; when implemented in software they are a protocol stack.
Internet communication protocols are published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) handles wired and wireless networking and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) handles other types. The ITU-T handles telecommunications protocols and formats for the public switched telephone network (PSTN). As the PSTN and Internet converge, the standards are also being driven towards convergence.
Communicating systems
[edit]History
[edit]The first use of the term protocol in a modern data-commutation context occurs in April 1967 in a memorandum entitled A Protocol for Use in the NPL Data Communications Network. Under the direction of Donald Davies, who pioneered packet switching at the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, it was written by Roger Scantlebury and Keith Bartlett for the NPL network.[5][6][7][8][9]
On the ARPANET, the starting point for host-to-host communication in 1969 was the 1822 protocol, written by Bob Kahn, which defined the transmission of messages to an IMP.[10] The Network Control Program (NCP) for the ARPANET, developed by Steve Crocker and other graduate students including Jon Postel and Vint Cerf, was first implemented in 1970.[11] The NCP interface allowed application software to connect across the ARPANET by implementing higher-level communication protocols, an early example of the protocol layering concept.[12]
The CYCLADES network, designed by Louis Pouzin in the early 1970s was the first to implement the end-to-end principle, and make the hosts responsible for the reliable delivery of data on a packet-switched network, rather than this being a service of the network itself.[13] His team was the first to tackle the highly complex problem of providing user applications with a reliable virtual circuit service while using a best-effort service, an early contribution to what will be the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).[14][15][16]
Bob Metcalfe and others at Xerox PARC outlined the idea of Ethernet and the PARC Universal Packet (PUP) for internetworking.[17]
Research in the early 1970s by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf led to the formulation of the Transmission Control Program (TCP).[18] Its RFC 675 specification was written by Cerf with Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine in December 1974, still a monolithic design at this time.
The International Network Working Group agreed on a connectionless datagram standard which was presented to the CCITT in 1975 but was not adopted by the CCITT nor by the ARPANET.[19] Separate international research, particularly the work of Rémi Després, contributed to the development of the X.25 standard, based on virtual circuits, which was adopted by the CCITT in 1976.[20][21] Computer manufacturers developed proprietary protocols such as IBM's Systems Network Architecture (SNA), Digital Equipment Corporation's DECnet and Xerox Network Systems.[22]
TCP software was redesigned as a modular protocol stack, referred to as TCP/IP. This was installed on SATNET in 1982 and on the ARPANET in January 1983. The development of a complete Internet protocol suite by 1989, as outlined in RFC 1122 and RFC 1123, laid the foundation for the growth of TCP/IP as a comprehensive protocol suite as the core component of the emerging Internet.[23]
International work on a reference model for communication standards led to the OSI model, published in 1984. For a period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which standard, the OSI model or the Internet protocol suite, would result in the best and most robust computer networks.[24][25][26]
Concept
[edit]The information exchanged between devices through a network or other media is governed by rules and conventions that can be set out in communication protocol specifications. The nature of communication, the actual data exchanged and any state-dependent behaviors, is defined by these specifications. In digital computing systems, the rules can be expressed by algorithms and data structures. Protocols are to communication what algorithms or programming languages are to computations.[3][4]
Operating systems usually contain a set of cooperating processes that manipulate shared data to communicate with each other. This communication is governed by well-understood protocols, which can be embedded in the process code itself.[27][28] In contrast, because there is no shared memory, communicating systems have to communicate with each other using a shared transmission medium. Transmission is not necessarily reliable, and individual systems may use different hardware or operating systems.
To implement a networking protocol, the protocol software modules are interfaced with a framework implemented on the machine's operating system. This framework implements the networking functionality of the operating system.[29] When protocol algorithms are expressed in a portable programming language the protocol software may be made operating system independent. The best-known frameworks are the TCP/IP model and the OSI model.
At the time the Internet was developed, abstraction layering had proven to be a successful design approach for both compiler and operating system design and, given the similarities between programming languages and communication protocols, the originally monolithic networking programs were decomposed into cooperating protocols.[30] This gave rise to the concept of layered protocols which nowadays forms the basis of protocol design.[31]
Systems typically do not use a single protocol to handle a transmission. Instead they use a set of cooperating protocols, sometimes called a protocol suite.[32] Some of the best-known protocol suites are TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, X.25, AX.25 and AppleTalk.
The protocols can be arranged based on functionality in groups, for instance, there is a group of transport protocols. The functionalities are mapped onto the layers, each layer solving a distinct class of problems relating to, for instance: application-, transport-, internet- and network interface-functions.[33] To transmit a message, a protocol has to be selected from each layer. The selection of the next protocol is accomplished by extending the message with a protocol selector for each layer.[34]
Types
[edit]There are two types of communication protocols, based on their representation of the content being carried: text-based and binary.[citation needed]
Text-based
[edit]A text-based protocol or plain text protocol represents its content in human-readable format, often in plain text encoded in a machine-readable encoding such as ASCII or UTF-8, or in structured text-based formats such as Intel hex format, XML or JSON.
The immediate human readability stands in contrast to native binary protocols which have inherent benefits for use in a computer environment (such as ease of mechanical parsing and improved bandwidth utilization).
Network applications have various methods of encapsulating data. One method very common with Internet protocols is a text oriented representation that transmits requests and responses as lines of ASCII text, terminated by a newline character (and usually a carriage return character). Examples of protocols that use plain, human-readable text for its commands are FTP (File Transfer Protocol), SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), early versions of HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and the finger protocol.[35]
Text-based protocols are typically optimized for human parsing and interpretation and are therefore suitable whenever human inspection of protocol contents is required, such as during debugging and during early protocol development design phases.
Binary
[edit]A binary protocol utilizes all values of a byte, as opposed to a text-based protocol which only uses values corresponding to human-readable characters in ASCII encoding. Binary protocols are intended to be read by a machine rather than a human being. Binary protocols have the advantage of terseness, which translates into speed of transmission and interpretation.[36]
Binary have been used in the normative documents describing modern standards like EbXML, HTTP/2, HTTP/3 and EDOC.[37] An interface in UML[38] may also be considered a binary protocol.
Basic requirements
[edit]Getting the data across a network is only part of the problem for a protocol. The data received has to be evaluated in the context of the progress of the conversation, so a protocol must include rules describing the context. These kinds of rules are said to express the syntax of the communication. Other rules determine whether the data is meaningful for the context in which the exchange takes place. These kinds of rules are said to express the semantics of the communication.
Messages are sent and received on communicating systems to establish communication. Protocols should therefore specify rules governing the transmission. In general, much of the following should be addressed:[39]
- Data formats for data exchange
- Digital message bitstrings are exchanged. The bitstrings are divided in fields and each field carries information relevant to the protocol. Conceptually the bitstring is divided into two parts called the header and the payload. The actual message is carried in the payload. The header area contains the fields with relevance to the operation of the protocol. Bitstrings longer than the maximum transmission unit (MTU) are divided in pieces of appropriate size.[40]
- Address formats for data exchange
- Addresses are used to identify both the sender and the intended receiver(s). The addresses are carried in the header area of the bitstrings, allowing the receivers to determine whether the bitstrings are of interest and should be processed or should be ignored. A connection between a sender and a receiver can be identified using an address pair (sender address, receiver address). Usually, some address values have special meanings. An all-1s address could be taken to mean an addressing of all stations on the network, so sending to this address would result in a broadcast on the local network. The rules describing the meanings of the address value are collectively called an addressing scheme.[41]
- Address mapping
- Sometimes protocols need to map addresses of one scheme on addresses of another scheme. For instance, to translate a logical IP address specified by the application to an Ethernet MAC address. This is referred to as address mapping.[42]
- Routing
- When systems are not directly connected, intermediary systems along the route to the intended receiver(s) need to forward messages on behalf of the sender. On the Internet, the networks are connected using routers. The interconnection of networks through routers is called internetworking.
- Detection of transmission errors
- Error detection is necessary on networks where data corruption is possible. In a common approach, a CRC of the data area is added to the end of packets, making it possible for the receiver to detect differences caused by corruption. The receiver rejects the packets on CRC differences and arranges somehow for retransmission.[43]
- Acknowledgements
- Acknowledgement of correct reception of packets is required for connection-oriented communication. Acknowledgments are sent from receivers back to their respective senders.[44]
- Loss of information - timeouts and retries
- Packets may be lost on the network or be delayed in transit. To cope with this, under some protocols, a sender may expect an acknowledgment of correct reception from the receiver within a certain amount of time. Thus, on timeouts, the sender may need to retransmit the information.[a] In case of a permanently broken link, the retransmission has no effect, so the number of retransmissions is limited. Exceeding the retry limit is considered an error.[45]
- Direction of information flow
- Direction needs to be addressed if transmissions can only occur in one direction at a time as on half-duplex links or from one sender at a time as on a shared medium. This is known as media access control. Arrangements have to be made to accommodate the case of collision or contention where two parties respectively simultaneously transmit or wish to transmit.[46]
- Sequence control
- If long bitstrings are divided into pieces and then sent on the network individually, the pieces may get lost or delayed or, on some types of networks, take different routes to their destination. As a result, pieces may arrive out of sequence. Retransmissions can result in duplicate pieces. By marking the pieces with sequence information at the sender, the receiver can determine what was lost or duplicated, ask for necessary retransmissions and reassemble the original message.[47]
- Flow control
- Flow control is needed when the sender transmits faster than the receiver or intermediate network equipment can process the transmissions. Flow control can be implemented by messaging from receiver to sender.[48]
- Queueing
- Communicating processes or state machines employ queues (or "buffers"), usually FIFO queues, to deal with the messages in the order sent, and may sometimes have multiple queues with different prioritization.
Protocol design
[edit]Systems engineering principles have been applied to create a set of common network protocol design principles. The design of complex protocols often involves decomposition into simpler, cooperating protocols. Such a set of cooperating protocols is sometimes called a protocol family or a protocol suite,[32] within a conceptual framework.
Communicating systems operate concurrently. An important aspect of concurrent programming is the synchronization of software for receiving and transmitting messages of communication in proper sequencing. Concurrent programming has traditionally been a topic in operating systems theory texts.[49] Formal verification seems indispensable because concurrent programs are notorious for the hidden and sophisticated bugs they contain.[50] A mathematical approach to the study of concurrency and communication is referred to as communicating sequential processes (CSP).[51] Concurrency can also be modeled using finite-state machines, such as Mealy and Moore machines. Mealy and Moore machines are in use as design tools in digital electronics systems encountered in the form of hardware used in telecommunication or electronic devices in general.[52][better source needed]
The literature presents numerous analogies between computer communication and programming. In analogy, a transfer mechanism of a protocol is comparable to a central processing unit (CPU). The framework introduces rules that allow the programmer to design cooperating protocols independently of one another.
Layering
[edit]
In modern protocol design, protocols are layered to form a protocol stack. Layering is a design principle that divides the protocol design task into smaller steps, each of which accomplishes a specific part, interacting with the other parts of the protocol only in a small number of well-defined ways. Layering allows the parts of a protocol to be designed and tested without a combinatorial explosion of cases, keeping each design relatively simple.
The communication protocols in use on the Internet are designed to function in diverse and complex settings. Internet protocols are designed for simplicity and modularity and fit into a coarse hierarchy of functional layers defined in the Internet Protocol Suite.[53] The first two cooperating protocols, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) resulted from the decomposition of the original Transmission Control Program, a monolithic communication protocol, into this layered communication suite.
The OSI model was developed internationally based on experience with networks that predated the internet as a reference model for general communication with much stricter rules of protocol interaction and rigorous layering.
Typically, application software is built upon a robust data transport layer. Underlying this transport layer is a datagram delivery and routing mechanism that is typically connectionless in the Internet. Packet relaying across networks happens over another layer that involves only network link technologies, which are often specific to certain physical layer technologies, such as Ethernet. Layering provides opportunities to exchange technologies when needed, for example, protocols are often stacked in a tunneling arrangement to accommodate the connection of dissimilar networks. For example, IP may be tunneled across an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network.
Protocol layering
[edit]
Protocol layering forms the basis of protocol design.[31] It allows the decomposition of single, complex protocols into simpler, cooperating protocols.[53] The protocol layers each solve a distinct class of communication problems. Together, the layers make up a layering scheme or model.
Computations deal with algorithms and data; Communication involves protocols and messages; So the analog of a data flow diagram is some kind of message flow diagram.[4] To visualize protocol layering and protocol suites, a diagram of the message flows in and between two systems, A and B, is shown in figure 3. The systems, A and B, both make use of the same protocol suite. The vertical flows (and protocols) are in-system and the horizontal message flows (and protocols) are between systems. The message flows are governed by rules, and data formats specified by protocols. The blue lines mark the boundaries of the (horizontal) protocol layers.
Software layering
[edit]
The software supporting protocols has a layered organization and its relationship with protocol layering is shown in figure 5.
To send a message on system A, the top-layer software module interacts with the module directly below it and hands over the message to be encapsulated. The lower module fills in the header data in accordance with the protocol it implements and interacts with the bottom module which sends the message over the communications channel to the bottom module of system B. On the receiving system B the reverse happens, so ultimately the message gets delivered in its original form to the top module of system B.[54]
Program translation is divided into subproblems. As a result, the translation software is layered as well, allowing the software layers to be designed independently. The same approach can be seen in the TCP/IP layering.[55]
The modules below the application layer are generally considered part of the operating system. Passing data between these modules is much less expensive than passing data between an application program and the transport layer. The boundary between the application layer and the transport layer is called the operating system boundary.[56]
Strict layering
[edit]Strictly adhering to a layered model, a practice known as strict layering, is not always the best approach to networking.[57] Strict layering can have a negative impact on the performance of an implementation.[58]
Although the use of protocol layering is today ubiquitous across the field of computer networking, it has been historically criticized by many researchers[59] as abstracting the protocol stack in this way may cause a higher layer to duplicate the functionality of a lower layer, a prime example being error recovery on both a per-link basis and an end-to-end basis.[60]
Design patterns
[edit]Commonly recurring problems in the design and implementation of communication protocols can be addressed by software design patterns.[61][62][63][64][65]
Formal specification
[edit]Popular formal methods of describing communication syntax are Abstract Syntax Notation One (an ISO standard) and augmented Backus–Naur form (an IETF standard).
Finite-state machine models are used to formally describe the possible interactions of the protocol.[66][67] and communicating finite-state machines[68]
Protocol development
[edit]For communication to occur, protocols have to be selected. The rules can be expressed by algorithms and data structures. Hardware and operating system independence is enhanced by expressing the algorithms in a portable programming language. Source independence of the specification provides wider interoperability.
Protocol standards are commonly created by obtaining the approval or support of a standards organization, which initiates the standardization process. The members of the standards organization agree to adhere to the work result on a voluntary basis. Often the members are in control of large market shares relevant to the protocol and in many cases, standards are enforced by law or the government because they are thought to serve an important public interest, so getting approval can be very important for the protocol.
The need for protocol standards
[edit]The need for protocol standards can be shown by looking at what happened to the Binary Synchronous Communications (BSC) protocol invented by IBM. BSC is an early link-level protocol used to connect two separate nodes. It was originally not intended to be used in a multinode network, but doing so revealed several deficiencies of the protocol. In the absence of standardization, manufacturers and organizations felt free to enhance the protocol, creating incompatible versions on their networks. In some cases, this was deliberately done to discourage users from using equipment from other manufacturers. There are more than 50 variants of the original bi-sync protocol. One can assume, that a standard would have prevented at least some of this from happening.[29]
In some cases, protocols gain market dominance without going through a standardization process. Such protocols are referred to as de facto standards. De facto standards are common in emerging markets, niche markets, or markets that are monopolized (or oligopolized). They can hold a market in a very negative grip, especially when used to scare away competition. From a historical perspective, standardization should be seen as a measure to counteract the ill-effects of de facto standards. Positive exceptions exist; a de facto standard operating system like Linux does not have this negative grip on its market, because the sources are published and maintained in an open way, thus inviting competition.
Standards organizations
[edit]Some of the standards organizations of relevance for communication protocols are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF maintains the protocols in use on the Internet. The IEEE controls many software and hardware protocols in the electronics industry for commercial and consumer devices. The ITU is an umbrella organization of telecommunication engineers designing the public switched telephone network (PSTN), as well as many radio communication systems. For marine electronics the NMEA standards are used. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) produces protocols and standards for Web technologies.
International standards organizations are supposed to be more impartial than local organizations with a national or commercial self-interest to consider. Standards organizations also do research and development for standards of the future. In practice, the standards organizations mentioned, cooperate closely with each other.[69]
Multiple standards bodies may be involved in the development of a protocol. If they are uncoordinated, then the result may be multiple, incompatible definitions of a protocol, or multiple, incompatible interpretations of messages; important invariants in one definition (e.g., that time-to-live values are monotone decreasing to prevent stable routing loops) may not be respected in another.[70]
The standardization process
[edit]In the ISO, the standardization process starts off with the commissioning of a sub-committee workgroup. The workgroup issues working drafts and discussion documents to interested parties (including other standards bodies) in order to provoke discussion and comments. This will generate a lot of questions, much discussion and usually some disagreement. These comments are taken into account and a draft proposal is produced by the working group. After feedback, modification, and compromise the proposal reaches the status of a draft international standard, and ultimately an international standard. International standards are reissued periodically to handle the deficiencies and reflect changing views on the subject.[71]
OSI standardization
[edit]| OSI model by layer |
|---|
A lesson learned from ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet, was that protocols need a framework to operate. It is therefore important to develop a general-purpose, future-proof framework suitable for structured protocols (such as layered protocols) and their standardization. This would prevent protocol standards with overlapping functionality and would allow clear definition of the responsibilities of a protocol at the different levels (layers).[73] This gave rise to the Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI model), which is used as a framework for the design of standard protocols and services conforming to the various layer specifications.[74]
In the OSI model, communicating systems are assumed to be connected by an underlying physical medium providing a basic transmission mechanism. The layers above it are numbered. Each layer provides service to the layer above it using the services of the layer immediately below it. The top layer provides services to the application process. The layers communicate with each other by means of an interface, called a service access point. Corresponding layers at each system are called peer entities. To communicate, two peer entities at a given layer use a protocol specific to that layer which is implemented by using services of the layer below.[75] For each layer, there are two types of standards: protocol standards defining how peer entities at a given layer communicate, and service standards defining how a given layer communicates with the layer above it.
In the OSI model, the layers and their functionality are (from highest to lowest layer):
- The Application layer may provide the following services to the application processes: identification of the intended communication partners, establishment of the necessary authority to communicate, determination of availability and authentication of the partners, agreement on privacy mechanisms for the communication, agreement on responsibility for error recovery and procedures for ensuring data integrity, synchronization between cooperating application processes, identification of any constraints on syntax (e.g. character sets and data structures), determination of cost and acceptable quality of service, selection of the dialogue discipline, including required logon and logoff procedures.[76]
- The presentation layer may provide the following services to the application layer: a request for the establishment of a session, data transfer, negotiation of the syntax to be used between the application layers, any necessary syntax transformations, formatting and special purpose transformations (e.g., data compression and data encryption).[77]
- The session layer may provide the following services to the presentation layer: establishment and release of session connections, normal and expedited data exchange, a quarantine service which allows the sending presentation entity to instruct the receiving session entity not to release data to its presentation entity without permission, interaction management so presentation entities can control whose turn it is to perform certain control functions, resynchronization of a session connection, reporting of unrecoverable exceptions to the presentation entity.[78]
- The transport layer provides reliable and transparent data transfer in a cost-effective way as required by the selected quality of service. It may support the multiplexing of several transport connections on to one network connection or split one transport connection into several network connections.[79]
- The network layer does the setup, maintenance and release of network paths between transport peer entities. When relays are needed, routing and relay functions are provided by this layer. The quality of service is negotiated between network and transport entities at the time the connection is set up. This layer is also responsible for network congestion control.[80]
- The data link layer does the setup, maintenance and release of data link connections. Errors occurring in the physical layer are detected and may be corrected. Errors are reported to the network layer. The exchange of data link units (including flow control) is defined by this layer.[81]
- The physical layer describes details like the electrical characteristics of the physical connection, the transmission techniques used, and the setup, maintenance and clearing of physical connections.[82]
In contrast to the TCP/IP layering scheme, which assumes a connectionless network, RM/OSI assumed a connection-oriented network.[83] Connection-oriented networks are more suitable for wide area networks and connectionless networks are more suitable for local area networks. Connection-oriented communication requires some form of session and (virtual) circuits, hence the (in the TCP/IP model lacking) session layer. The constituent members of ISO were mostly concerned with wide area networks, so the development of RM/OSI concentrated on connection-oriented networks and connectionless networks were first mentioned in an addendum to RM/OSI[84][85] and later incorporated into an update to RM/OSI.[86]
At the time,[when?] the IETF had to cope with this and the fact that the Internet needed protocols that simply were not there.[citation needed] As a result, the IETF developed its own standardization process based on "rough consensus and running code".[87] The standardization process is described by RFC 2026.
Nowadays, the IETF has become a standards organization for the protocols in use on the Internet. RM/OSI has extended its model to include connectionless services and because of this, both TCP and IP could be developed into international standards.[citation needed]
Wire image
[edit]The wire image of a protocol is the information that a non-participant observer is able to glean from observing the protocol messages, including both information explicitly given meaning by the protocol, but also inferences made by the observer.[88] Unencrypted protocol metadata is one source making up the wire image, and side-channels including packet timing also contribute.[89] Different observers with different vantages may see different wire images.[90] The wire image is relevant to end-user privacy and the extensibility of the protocol.[91]
If some portion of the wire image is not cryptographically authenticated, it is subject to modification by intermediate parties (i.e., middleboxes), which can influence protocol operation.[89] Even if authenticated, if a portion is not encrypted, it will form part of the wire image, and intermediate parties may intervene depending on its content (e.g., dropping packets with particular flags). Signals deliberately intended for intermediary consumption may be left authenticated but unencrypted.[92]
The wire image can be deliberately engineered, encrypting parts that intermediaries should not be able to observe and providing signals for what they should be able to.[93] If provided signals are decoupled from the protocol's operation, they may become untrustworthy.[94] Benign network management and research are affected by metadata encryption; protocol designers must balance observability for operability and research against ossification resistance and end-user privacy.[91] The IETF announced in 2014 that it had determined that large-scale surveillance of protocol operations is an attack due to the ability to infer information from the wire image about users and their behaviour,[95] and that the IETF would "work to mitigate pervasive monitoring" in its protocol designs;[96] this had not been done systematically previously.[96] The Internet Architecture Board recommended in 2023 that disclosure of information by a protocol to the network should be intentional,[97] performed with the agreement of both recipient and sender,[98] authenticated to the degree possible and necessary,[99] only acted upon to the degree of its trustworthiness,[100] and minimised and provided to a minimum number of entities.[101][102] Engineering the wire image and controlling what signals are provided to network elements was a "developing field" in 2023, according to the IAB.[103]
Ossification
[edit]Protocol ossification is the loss of flexibility, extensibility and evolvability of network protocols. This is largely due to middleboxes that are sensitive to the wire image of the protocol, and which can interrupt or interfere with messages that are valid but which the middlebox does not correctly recognize.[104] This is a violation of the end-to-end principle.[105] Secondary causes include inflexibility in endpoint implementations of protocols.[106]
Ossification is a major issue in Internet protocol design and deployment, as it can prevent new protocols or extensions from being deployed on the Internet, or place strictures on the design of new protocols; new protocols may have to be encapsulated in an already-deployed protocol or mimic the wire image of another protocol.[107] Because of ossification, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) are the only practical choices for transport protocols on the Internet,[108] and TCP itself has significantly ossified, making extension or modification of the protocol difficult.[109]
Recommended methods of preventing ossification include encrypting protocol metadata,[110] and ensuring that extension points are exercised and wire image variability is exhibited as fully as possible;[111] remedying existing ossification requires coordination across protocol participants.[112] QUIC is the first IETF transport protocol to have been designed with deliberate anti-ossification properties.[88]
Taxonomies
[edit]Classification schemes for protocols usually focus on the domain of use and function. As an example of domain of use, connection-oriented protocols and connectionless protocols are used on connection-oriented networks and connectionless networks respectively. An example of function is a tunneling protocol, which is used to encapsulate packets in a high-level protocol so that the packets can be passed across a transport system using the high-level protocol.
A layering scheme combines both function and domain of use. The dominant layering schemes are the ones developed by the IETF and by ISO. Despite the fact that the underlying assumptions of the layering schemes are different enough to warrant distinguishing the two, it is a common practice to compare the two by relating common protocols to the layers of the two schemes.[113] The layering scheme from the IETF is called Internet layering or TCP/IP layering. The layering scheme from ISO is called the OSI model or ISO layering.
In networking equipment configuration, a term-of-art distinction is often drawn: The term protocol strictly refers to the transport layer, and the term service refers to protocols utilizing a protocol for transport. In the common case of TCP and UDP, services are distinguished by port numbers. Conformance to these port numbers is voluntary, so in content inspection systems the term service strictly refers to port numbers, and the term application is often used to refer to protocols identified through inspection signatures.
See also
[edit]- Cryptographic protocol – Aspect of cryptography
- Lists of network protocols
- Protocol Builder – Programming tool to build network connectivity components
Notes
[edit]- ^ Failure to receive an acknowledgment indicates that either the original transmission or the acknowledgment was lost. The sender has no means to distinguish these cases and therefore, to ensure all data is received, must make the conservative assumption that the original transmission was lost.
References
[edit]- ^ US 7529565, Hilpisch, Robert E.; Duchscher, Rob & Seel, Mark et al., "Wireless communication protocol", published 5 May 2009, assigned to Starkey Laboratories Inc. and Oticon AS
- ^ Protocol, Encyclopædia Britannica, archived from the original on 12 September 2012, retrieved 24 September 2012
- ^ a b Comer 2000, Sect. 11.2 - The Need For Multiple Protocols, p. 177, "They (protocols) are to communication what programming languages are to computation"
- ^ a b c Comer 2000, Sect. 1.3 - Internet Services, p. 3, "Protocols are to communication what algorithms are to computation"
- ^ Naughton, John (24 September 2015). A Brief History of the Future. Orion. ISBN 978-1-4746-0277-8.
- ^ Campbell-Kelly, Martin (July 1987). "Data Communications at the National Physical Laboratory (1965-1975)". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 9 (3): 221–247. doi:10.1109/MAHC.1987.10023.
- ^ Pelkey, James L. "6.1 The Communications Subnet: BBN 1969". Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968–1988.
As Kahn recalls: ... Paul Baran's contributions ... I also think Paul was motivated almost entirely by voice considerations. If you look at what he wrote, he was talking about switches that were low-cost electronics. The idea of putting powerful computers in these locations hadn't quite occurred to him as being cost effective. So the idea of computer switches was missing. The whole notion of protocols didn't exist at that time. And the idea of computer-to-computer communications was really a secondary concern.
- ^ Waldrop, M. Mitchell (2018). The Dream Machine. Stripe Press. p. 286. ISBN 978-1-953953-36-0.
Baran had put more emphasis on digital voice communications than on computer communications.
- ^ Kleinrock, L. (1978). "Principles and lessons in packet communications". Proceedings of the IEEE. 66 (11): 1320–1329. doi:10.1109/PROC.1978.11143.
Paul Baran ... focused on the routing procedures and on the survivability of distributed communication systems in a hostile environment, but did not concentrate on the need for resource sharing in its form as we now understand it; indeed, the concept of a software switch was not present in his work.
- ^ Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP (PDF) (Report). Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN). Report No. 1822.
- ^ BOOKS, HIGH DEFINITION. UGC -NET/JRF/SET PTP & Guide Teaching and Research Aptitude: UGC -NET By HD. High Definition Books.
- ^ "NCP – Network Control Program". Living Internet. Archived from the original on 7 August 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
- ^ Bennett, Richard (September 2009). "Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate" (PDF). Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. pp. 7, 11. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
- ^ Abbate, Janet (2000). Inventing the Internet. MIT Press. pp. 124–127. ISBN 978-0-262-51115-5.
In fact, CYCLADES, unlike ARPANET, had been explicitly designed to facilitate internetworking; it could, for instance, handle varying formats and varying levels of service
- ^ Kim, Byung-Keun (2005). Internationalising the Internet the Co-evolution of Influence and Technology. Edward Elgar. pp. 51–55. ISBN 1845426754.
In addition to the NPL Network and the ARPANET, CYCLADES, an academic and research experimental network, also played an important role in the development of computer networking technologies
- ^ "The internet's fifth man". The Economist. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now power the internet.
- ^ Moschovitis 1999, p. 78-9
- ^ Cerf, V.; Kahn, R. (May 1974). "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication". IEEE Transactions on Communications. 22 (5): 637–648. doi:10.1109/TCOM.1974.1092259.
The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations.
- ^ McKenzie, Alexander (January 2011). "INWG and the Conception of the Internet: An Eyewitness Account". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 33 (1): 66–71. Bibcode:2011IAHC...33a..66M. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2011.9.
- ^ Schwartz, Mischa (November 2010). "X.25 Virtual Circuits - TRANSPAC IN France - Pre-Internet Data Networking [History of communications]". IEEE Communications Magazine. 48 (11): 40–46. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2010.5621965.
- ^ Rybczynski, Tony (December 2009). "Commercialization of packet switching (1975-1985): A Canadian perspective [History of Communications]". IEEE Communications Magazine. 47 (12): 26–31. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2009.5350364.
- ^ The "Hidden" Prehistory of European Research Networking. Trafford Publishing. p. 354. ISBN 978-1-4669-3935-6.
- ^ "TCP/IP Internet Protocol". Living Internet. Archived from the original on 1 September 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
- ^ Andrew L. Russell (30 July 2013). "OSI: The Internet That Wasn't". IEEE Spectrum. Vol. 50, no. 8.
- ^ Russell, Andrew L. "Rough Consensus and Running Code' and the Internet-OSI Standards War" (PDF). IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2019. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
- ^ "Standards Wars" (PDF). 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 February 2021. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
- ^ Ben-Ari 1982, chapter 2 - The concurrent programming abstraction, p. 18-19, states the same.
- ^ Ben-Ari 1982, Section 2.7 - Summary, p. 27, summarizes the concurrent programming abstraction.
- ^ a b Marsden 1986, Section 6.1 - Why are standards necessary?, p. 64-65, uses BSC as an example to show the need for both standard protocols and a standard framework.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.2 - The Need For Multiple Protocols, p. 177, explains this by drawing analogies between computer communication and programming languages.
- ^ a b Sect. 11.10 - The Disadvantage Of Layering, p. 192, states: layering forms the basis for protocol design.
- ^ a b Comer 2000, Sect. 11.2 - The Need For Multiple Protocols, p. 177, states the same.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.3 - The Conceptual Layers Of Protocol Software, p. 178, "Each layer takes responsibility for handling one part of the problem."
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.11 - The Basic Idea Behind Multiplexing And Demultiplexing, p. 192, states the same.
- ^ Kirch, Olaf (16 January 2002). "Text Based Protocols". Archived from the original on 30 May 2010. Retrieved 21 October 2014.
- ^ Kirch, Olaf (16 January 2002). "Binary Representation Protocols". Archived from the original on 30 May 2010. Retrieved 4 May 2006.
- ^ Kirch, Olaf (16 January 2002). "Binary Representation Protocols". Archived from the original on 5 March 2006. Retrieved 4 May 2006.
- ^ "Welcome To UML Web Site!". Uml.org. Archived from the original on 30 September 2019. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Chapter 3 - Fundamental protocol concepts and problem areas, p. 26-42, explains much of the following.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 7.7.4 - Datagram Size, Network MTU, and Fragmentation, p. 104, Explains fragmentation and the effect on the header of the fragments.
- ^ Comer 2000, Chapter 4 - Classful Internet Addresses, p. 64-67;71.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.3 - Layering concepts and general definitions, p. 187, explains address mapping.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.2 - Detection and transmission errors, p. 27, explains the advantages of backward error correction.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.3 - Acknowledgement, p. 28-33, explains the advantages of positive only acknowledgment and mentions datagram protocols as exceptions.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.4 - Loss of information - timeouts and retries, p. 33-34.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.5 - Direction of information flow, p. 34-35, explains master/slave and the negotiations to gain control.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.6 - Sequence control, p. 35–36, explains how packets get lost and how sequencing solves this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 3.7 - Flow control, p. 36–38.
- ^ Ben-Ari 1982, in his preface, p. xiii.
- ^ Ben-Ari 1982, in his preface, p. xiv.
- ^ Hoare 1985, Chapter 4 - Communication, p. 133, deals with communication.
- ^ S. Srinivasan, Digital Circuits and Systems, NPTEL courses, archived from the original on 27 December 2009
- ^ a b Comer 2000, Sect. 11.2 - The Need For Multiple Protocols, p. 177, introduces the decomposition in layers.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.3 - The Conceptual Layers Of Protocol Software, p. 179, the first two paragraphs describe the sending of a message through successive layers.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.2 - The need for multiple protocols, p. 178, explains similarities protocol software and compiler, assembler, linker, loader.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.9.1 - Operating System Boundary, p. 192, describes the operating system boundary.
- ^ IETF 1989, Sect 1.3.1 - Organization, p. 15, 2nd paragraph: many design choices involve creative "breaking" of strict layering.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.10 - The Disadvantage Of Layering, p. 192, explains why "strict layering can be extremely inefficient" giving examples of optimizations.
- ^ Wakeman, I (January 1992). "Layering considered harmful". IEEE Network: 20–24.
- ^ Kurose, James; Ross, Keith (2005). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach. Pearson.
- ^ Lascano, Jorge Edison; Clyde, Stephen; Raza, Ali. "Communication-protocol Design Patterns (CommDP) - COMMDP". Archived from the original on 18 March 2017. Retrieved 17 March 2017.
- ^ Lascano, J. E.; Clyde, S. (2016). A Pattern Language for Application-level Communication Protocols. ICSEA 2016, The Eleventh International Conference on Software Engineering Advances. pp. 22–30.
- ^ Daigneau, R. (2011). Service Design Patterns: Fundamental Design Solutions for SOAP/WSDL and RESTful Web Services (1 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley Professional.
- ^ Fowler, M. (2002). Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture (1 ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0-321-12742-0.
- ^ [1]F. Buschmann, K. Henney, and D. C. Schmidt, Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 4: A Pattern Language for Distributed Computing, Volume 4 edition. Chichester England; New York: Wiley, 2007.
- ^ Bochmann, G. (1978). "Finite state description of communication protocols". Computer Networks. 2 (4–5): 361–372. doi:10.1016/0376-5075(78)90015-6.
- ^ Comer 2000, Glossary of Internetworking Terms and Abbreviations, p. 704, term protocol.
- ^ Brand, Daniel; Zafiropulo, Pitro (April 1983). "On Communicating Finite-State Machines". Journal of the ACM. 30 (2): 323–342. doi:10.1145/322374.322380.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 6.3 - Advantages of standardization, p. 66-67, states the same.
- ^ Bryant & Morrow 2009, p. 4.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 6.4 - Some problems with standardisation, p. 67, follows HDLC to illustrate the process.
- ^ "X.225 : Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – Connection-oriented Session protocol: Protocol specification". Archived from the original on 1 February 2021. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 6.1 - Why are standards necessary?, p. 65, explains lessons learned from ARPANET.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.1 - Introduction, p. 181, introduces OSI.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.3 - Layering concepts and general definitions, p. 183-185, explains terminology.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.4 - The application layer, p. 188, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.5 - The presentation layer, p. 189, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.6 - The session layer, p. 190, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.7 - The transport layer, p. 191, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.8 - The network layer, p. 192, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.9 - The data link layer, p. 194, explains this.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.10 - The physical layer, p. 195, explains this.
- ^ ISO 7498:1984 – Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Basic Reference Model. p. 5.
This Basic Reference Model of Open Systems Interconnection is based on the assumption that a connection is required for the transfer of data.
- ^ ISO 7498:1984/ADD 1:1987 – Information processing systems — Open Systems Interconnection — Basic Reference Model — Addendum 1.
- ^ Marsden 1986, Section 14.11 - Connectionless mode and RM/OSI, p. 195, mentions this.
- ^ ISO 7498:1994 – Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Basic Reference Model.
- ^ Comer 2000, Section 1.9 - Internet Protocols And Standardization, p. 12, explains why the IETF did not use existing protocols.
- ^ a b Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 2.
- ^ a b Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 3.
- ^ Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 4.
- ^ a b Fairhurst & Perkins 2021, 7. Conclusions.
- ^ Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 5.
- ^ Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 6.
- ^ Trammell & Kuehlewind 2019, p. 7-8.
- ^ Farrell & Tschofenig 2014, p. 2.
- ^ a b Farrell & Tschofenig 2014, p. 3.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.1. Intentional Distribution.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.2. Control of the Distribution of Information.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.3. Protecting Information and Authentication.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.5. Limiting Impact of Information.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.4. Minimize Information.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 2.6. Minimum Set of Entities.
- ^ Arkko et al. 2023, 3. Further Work.
- ^ Papastergiou et al. 2017, p. 619.
- ^ Papastergiou et al. 2017, p. 620.
- ^ Papastergiou et al. 2017, p. 620-621.
- ^ Papastergiou et al. 2017, p. 623-4.
- ^ McQuistin, Perkins & Fayed 2016, p. 1.
- ^ Thomson & Pauly 2021, A.5. TCP.
- ^ Hardie 2019, p. 7-8.
- ^ Thomson & Pauly 2021, 3. Active Use.
- ^ Thomson & Pauly 2021, 3.5. Restoring Active Use.
- ^ Comer 2000, Sect. 11.5.1 - The TCP/IP 5-Layer Reference Model, p. 183, states the same.
Bibliography
[edit]- Radia Perlman (1999). Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and Internetworking Protocols (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-63448-1.. In particular Ch. 18 on "network design folklore", which is also available online
- Gerard J. Holzmann (1991). Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-539925-4.
- Douglas E. Comer (2000). Internetworking with TCP/IP - Principles, Protocols and Architecture (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-018380-6. In particular Ch.11 Protocol layering. Also has a RFC guide and a Glossary of Internetworking Terms and Abbreviations.
- R. Braden, ed. (1989). Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers. Internet Engineering Task Force abbr. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1122. RFC 1122. Describes TCP/IP to the implementors of protocolsoftware. In particular the introduction gives an overview of the design goals of the suite.
- M. Ben-ari (1982). Principles of concurrent programming (10th Print ed.). Prentice Hall International. ISBN 0-13-701078-8.
- C.A.R. Hoare (1985). Communicating sequential processes (10th Print ed.). Prentice Hall International. ISBN 0-13-153271-5.
- R.D. Tennent (1981). Principles of programming languages (10th Print ed.). Prentice Hall International. ISBN 0-13-709873-1.
- Brian W Marsden (1986). Communication network protocols (2nd ed.). Chartwell Bratt. ISBN 0-86238-106-1.
- Andrew S. Tanenbaum (1984). Structured computer organization (10th Print ed.). Prentice Hall International. ISBN 0-13-854605-3.
- Bryant, Stewart; Morrow, Monique, eds. (November 2009). Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful. doi:10.17487/RFC5704. RFC 5704.
- Farrell, Stephen; Tschofenig, Hannes (May 2014). Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack. doi:10.17487/RFC7258. RFC 7258.
- Trammell, Brian; Kuehlewind, Mirja (April 2019). The Wire Image of a Network Protocol. doi:10.17487/RFC8546. RFC 8546.
- Hardie, Ted, ed. (April 2019). Transport Protocol Path Signals. doi:10.17487/RFC8558. RFC 8558.
- Fairhurst, Gorry; Perkins, Colin (July 2021). Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols. doi:10.17487/RFC9065. RFC 9065.
- Thomson, Martin; Pauly, Tommy (December 2021). Long-Term Viability of Protocol Extension Mechanisms. doi:10.17487/RFC9170. RFC 9170.
- Arkko, Jari; Hardie, Ted; Pauly, Tommy; Kühlewind, Mirja (July 2023). Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration Using Path Signals. doi:10.17487/RFC9419. RFC 9419.
- McQuistin, Stephen; Perkins, Colin; Fayed, Marwan (July 2016). Implementing Real-Time Transport Services over an Ossified Network. 2016 Applied Networking Research Workshop. doi:10.1145/2959424.2959443. hdl:1893/26111.
- Papastergiou, Giorgos; Fairhurst, Gorry; Ros, David; Brunstrom, Anna; Grinnemo, Karl-Johan; Hurtig, Per; Khademi, Naeem; Tüxen, Michael; Welzl, Michael; Damjanovic, Dragana; Mangiante, Simone (2017). "De-Ossifying the Internet Transport Layer: A Survey and Future Perspectives". IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 19: 619–639. doi:10.1109/COMST.2016.2626780. hdl:2164/8317.
- Moschovitis, Christos J. P. (1999). History of the Internet: A Chronology, 1843 to the Present. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-118-2.
External links
[edit]- Javvin's Protocol Dictionary at the Wayback Machine (archived 2004-06-10)
- Overview of protocols in telecontrol field with OSI Reference Model
Communication protocol
View on GrokipediaCore Concepts
Definition and Fundamental Elements
A communication protocol constitutes a predefined set of rules and conventions that govern the transmission, reception, and processing of data between entities in a communication system, such as computing devices or processes.[1] These rules specify the structure of messages, the sequence of exchanges, and mechanisms for handling discrepancies, ensuring interoperability across diverse hardware and software environments.[9] Without such protocols, data exchange would devolve into incompatible, error-prone interactions, as entities lack a common framework for interpreting signals or bits as meaningful information.[10] The core elements of a communication protocol encompass syntax, semantics, and synchronization (or timing). Syntax delineates the format and structure of messages, including bit-level encoding, field lengths, and delimiters—such as headers containing source/destination addresses and payloads carrying the actual data—which enable parsing and assembly at the receiving end.[10] Semantics assign meaning to syntactic elements, defining interpretations like the action triggered by a specific flag (e.g., acknowledgment or retransmission request) or the logical significance of data values, thereby preventing misconstruction that could lead to system failures.[2] Synchronization coordinates the temporal aspects of communication, including event ordering, delays between transmissions, and flow control to match sender and receiver capacities, averting overflows or timeouts that disrupt causal sequences in data flow.[10] Additional fundamental aspects often integrated into protocols include error detection and correction, achieved via checksums or redundancy codes to verify integrity against transmission noise, and addressing schemes to route messages to intended recipients amid multiple endpoints.[2] These elements collectively form a causal chain: syntax provides the physical scaffold, semantics the interpretive layer, and synchronization the procedural rhythm, with deviations empirically linked to reduced throughput or data loss in network experiments.[10] Protocols may also incorporate authentication and encryption primitives to enforce security, though these extend rather than supplant the foundational triad.[9]Historical Development
The development of communication protocols in computer networking originated with the ARPANET project, initiated by the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1969, when the first packet-switched connections linked computers at UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute on October 29.[11] This marked the practical inception of standardized rules for data exchange between heterogeneous devices, driven by the need for reliable transmission over unreliable links.[12] In 1970, the Network Control Protocol (NCP) was implemented as ARPANET's initial host-to-host protocol, handling both connection establishment and data transfer functions, under the leadership of Steve Crocker at UCLA.[13] NCP enabled basic telnet and file transfer capabilities across four nodes by December 1970 but lacked mechanisms for internetworking multiple networks, exposing scalability limitations as ARPANET expanded to 15 nodes by 1971.[14] These constraints prompted Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn to propose the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in 1973, evolving into the TCP/IP suite by 1974, which separated reliable end-to-end transport (TCP) from best-effort packet routing (IP) to support heterogeneous networks.[15] Initial TCP/IP implementations were tested on ARPANET by 1978, demonstrating interoperability across diverse hardware.[16] On January 1, 1983—known as "Flag Day"—ARPANET mandated a transition from NCP to TCP/IP, decommissioning NCP entirely and establishing TCP/IP as the de facto standard for the emerging internet, with over 200 connected networks by mid-decade.[17] Parallel international efforts by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) culminated in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference model, published in 1984, which formalized seven layers for protocol design to promote vendor-neutral interoperability amid competing proprietary systems.[18] However, OSI's protocol implementations proved overly complex and slow to deploy, ceding dominance to TCP/IP's pragmatic, already-functional architecture by the late 1980s, as evidenced by its adoption in UNIX systems and military networks.[19] This "Protocol Wars" resolution underscored TCP/IP's emphasis on minimalism and empirical validation over theoretical completeness.[20]Classifications and Types
Text-Oriented versus Binary Protocols
Text-oriented protocols encode messages as sequences of human-readable characters, often using ASCII or UTF-8 encodings, where data fields are delimited by characters such as spaces, newlines, or specific tokens.[21][22] This format facilitates direct inspection and manual parsing, as messages can be viewed in plain text editors or network analyzers like Wireshark without specialized decoding.[23] In contrast, binary protocols represent data using fixed- or variable-length binary fields, leveraging the entire 256-value range of bytes rather than restricting to printable characters (typically 95-128 values in ASCII subsets).[21][23] The primary distinction arises in efficiency and usability. Text-oriented protocols consume more bandwidth due to their verbosity; for instance, representing a numerical value like 123 requires three bytes ("1","2","3") plus delimiters, whereas binary encoding might use a single byte or fewer.[21] Binary formats reduce message sizes by 30-80% in structured data scenarios, enabling faster transmission and lower latency, particularly in bandwidth-constrained environments like mobile networks.[24] Parsing binary data is also computationally lighter, as it avoids string operations, with binary encodings showing 10-100 times faster performance than text-based alternatives in data exchange benchmarks.[25] However, binary protocols introduce complexities such as byte-order (endianness) mismatches across heterogeneous systems and require precise schema knowledge for deserialization, increasing implementation error risks.[21]| Aspect | Text-Oriented Protocols | Binary Protocols |
|---|---|---|
| Bandwidth Usage | Higher due to verbose encoding and delimiters | Lower, more compact representation |
| Parsing Speed | Slower, involves string scanning and tokenization | Faster, direct field extraction |
| Debugging | Easier, human-readable with standard tools | Harder, requires hex dumps or protocol analyzers |
| Implementation | Simpler in text-handling languages (e.g., Python, Perl) | More error-prone, needs binary serialization libraries |
| Extensibility | Flexible via added fields or keywords | Rigid, often requires versioning for changes |
Connection-Oriented and Connectionless Protocols
Connection-oriented protocols establish a logical connection between sender and receiver prior to data transmission, typically via a handshake process that negotiates parameters such as sequence numbers and window sizes to enable reliable, ordered, and error-corrected delivery.[29] This setup phase, followed by data transfer and eventual connection teardown, incurs overhead but guarantees that data arrives intact and in sequence, with mechanisms for acknowledgments, retransmissions, and flow control.[30] The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), standardized in RFC 793 (1981) and refined in subsequent updates, exemplifies this approach, providing end-to-end reliability over IP networks for applications requiring data integrity, such as file transfers via FTP or email via SMTP.[30][29] In contrast, connectionless protocols transmit data units independently without prior connection setup, treating each packet as self-contained with its own addressing and routing information, which prioritizes speed and low overhead over reliability guarantees. Delivery is not assured, packets may arrive out of order or be lost, and no state is maintained between transmissions, making these protocols suitable for scenarios where occasional packet loss is tolerable, such as real-time streaming or simple queries.[31] The User Datagram Protocol (UDP), defined in RFC 768 (1980), operates as a connectionless transport layer protocol atop IP, enabling minimal-latency applications like DNS lookups or VoIP, where the application layer may handle any necessary error recovery.[31] Similarly, the Internet Protocol (IP) itself functions connectionlessly at the network layer, forwarding datagrams without session state.[29] The distinction arises from fundamental trade-offs in network design: connection-oriented services emulate circuit-switched reliability in packet-switched environments, consuming more resources for state maintenance across endpoints, while connectionless services leverage datagram independence for scalability in large, unpredictable networks. Empirical measurements show TCP's handshake and acknowledgments adding 20-50% latency overhead compared to UDP for short bursts, but ensuring <0.1% loss rates in controlled links, whereas UDP can exhibit up to 10-20% loss in congested wide-area networks without built-in recovery.[32] Hybrid approaches, like TCP-over-UDP encapsulation, attempt to combine UDP's low overhead with TCP-like reliability for specific use cases, such as traversing firewalls.[33]| Aspect | Connection-Oriented (e.g., TCP) | Connectionless (e.g., UDP) |
|---|---|---|
| Connection Setup | Required (e.g., three-way handshake)[29] | None; packets sent independently[31] |
| Reliability | Guaranteed via ACKs, retransmits, sequencing[30] | Best-effort; no guarantees |
| Overhead | Higher (stateful, headers include sequence numbers) | Lower (stateless, minimal headers)[29] |
| Use Cases | Bulk data transfer, transactions (e.g., HTTP, SMTP)[30] | Real-time, multicast (e.g., DNS, RTP)[31] |
| Error/Flow Control | Built-in (congestion avoidance, windowing) | Application-level only[29] |
Other Taxonomic Distinctions
Protocols may be distinguished by the directionality of data transmission, categorized as simplex, half-duplex, or full-duplex. Simplex transmission supports unidirectional communication, where data flows solely from sender to receiver, as seen in systems like keyboard-to-computer input or broadcast television signals.[34] Half-duplex allows bidirectional exchange but only in one direction at a time, requiring devices to alternate transmitting and receiving, which is common in walkie-talkies or early Ethernet networks using CSMA/CD.[35] Full-duplex enables simultaneous bidirectional transmission, doubling effective bandwidth through separate channels for sending and receiving, as implemented in modern telephone systems and most contemporary Ethernet implementations.[36] Another key distinction lies in timing mechanisms: synchronous versus asynchronous protocols. Synchronous protocols rely on a shared clock signal to synchronize transmitter and receiver, transmitting data in continuous streams or frames without embedded timing markers, which suits high-speed, constant-rate applications like SONET/SDH optical networks.[37] Asynchronous protocols, by contrast, incorporate start and stop bits or other framing within each data unit to signal boundaries, allowing flexible, clock-independent transmission ideal for variable-rate serial links like RS-232.[38] This approach trades potential overhead for adaptability in environments without precise clock synchronization.[39] Protocols also vary by addressing and dissemination scope: unicast, multicast, or broadcast. Unicast delivers data from one sender to one specific receiver, forming the basis for point-to-point connections in protocols like TCP/IP for individual sessions.[40] Multicast targets a select group of recipients, efficiently distributing content such as video streams via protocols like IGMP, reducing network load compared to repeated unicasts.[41] Broadcast floods data to all devices on a network segment, used in ARP for address resolution or DHCP discovery, though it risks congestion in large networks.[42] Reliability provides further taxonomy, with reliable protocols ensuring data integrity through mechanisms like acknowledgments, sequencing, and retransmissions—exemplified by TCP, which achieves error-free, ordered delivery at the cost of added latency.[43] Unreliable protocols, such as UDP, forgo these guarantees to prioritize low overhead and speed, suitable for applications like DNS queries or real-time streaming where occasional loss is tolerable.[44] Overlap exists with connection-oriented designs favoring reliability, but the distinction emphasizes delivery assurances independent of connection setup.[45] State maintenance offers another classification: stateful versus stateless protocols. Stateful protocols retain context across multiple exchanges, tracking session details like sequence numbers in TCP to enable ordered reassembly and flow control.[46] Stateless protocols process each message independently without prior history, as in HTTP/1.1 stateless requests, simplifying scalability but requiring clients to manage state.[47] This dichotomy influences design trade-offs, with stateful approaches enhancing reliability in persistent interactions while stateless ones support higher concurrency.[48]Basic Requirements
Reliability, Efficiency, and Error Management
Reliability in communication protocols refers to the capacity to deliver data accurately, completely, and in order despite channel impairments like noise, interference, or packet loss. Core mechanisms include automatic repeat request (ARQ) protocols, which employ acknowledgments (ACKs) and negative acknowledgments (NAKs) to confirm receipt, triggering retransmissions for unacknowledged or erroneous frames; variants such as stop-and-wait, go-back-N, and selective repeat optimize for varying error rates and bandwidth-delay products.[49] Sequence numbering prevents duplication or reordering, while timeouts ensure detection of lost acknowledgments.[49] Error management distinguishes detection from correction. Detection relies on redundancy checks: parity bits for single-bit errors, checksums summing data fields modulo a prime (e.g., Internet checksum in IP headers), and cyclic redundancy checks (CRC) using polynomial division for burst errors up to the polynomial degree, achieving near-zero undetected error rates for typical frame sizes.[50] Upon detection, protocols discard faulty frames and invoke ARQ for retransmission. Correction uses forward error correction (FEC), embedding parity data (e.g., Reed-Solomon or Hamming codes) to reconstruct bits without feedback, suitable for high-latency links but at the cost of constant overhead.[51] Efficiency metrics encompass throughput (bits per second delivered), latency (end-to-end delay), and overhead (control data fraction); protocols like UDP prioritize low overhead for real-time applications by omitting reliability, yielding higher efficiency on clean channels but risking loss.[52] Trade-offs arise causally from error-prone media: enhancing reliability via ARQ or FEC increases bandwidth use (e.g., ACKs consume 10-20% in TCP over high-loss links) and latency (retransmission delays), reducing effective throughput by factors proportional to packet error rate (approaching in simple ARQ).[53] Hybrid approaches, such as selective FEC with ARQ, mitigate this by applying correction only to probable errors, balancing causal factors like error burstiness against resource constraints.[51] In constrained environments like IoT, protocols weigh these against energy, where reliability mechanisms can double consumption via repeated transmissions.[52]Synchronization and Addressing Essentials
Synchronization mechanisms in communication protocols ensure that transmitting and receiving entities align on timing, data boundaries, and communication state to prevent misinterpretation or loss of information. At the bit level, synchronous protocols embed clock signals within the data stream for recovery, while asynchronous protocols rely on start and stop bits to delineate characters. Frame-level synchronization uses distinctive bit patterns, such as the 0x7E flag in HDLC-like protocols, to mark message boundaries and avoid ambiguity in continuous streams. These techniques are foundational to decoding serial data correctly, as misalignment can render entire transmissions unusable. In connection-oriented protocols, higher-level synchronization establishes reliable state agreement. The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), specified in RFC 793 published in September 1981, implements this via a three-way handshake: the initiator sends a SYN segment with its initial sequence number (ISN), the responder replies with a SYN-ACK segment carrying its ISN and acknowledging the initiator's, and the initiator confirms with an ACK. This process synchronizes 32-bit sequence numbers (modulo 2^32), where each data octet is assigned a unique value for ordering and acknowledgment, using flags like SYN (which consumes one sequence number) and ACK to validate receipt and expected next sequences. Variables such as SND.NXT (next to send) and RCV.NXT (next expected) track this state, enabling detection of duplicates or gaps over the maximum segment lifetime of 2 minutes.[54] Time synchronization addresses clock drift in distributed systems, essential for protocols requiring temporal coordination, such as real-time applications. The Network Time Protocol (NTP), initially described in RFC 958 from September 1985, employs hierarchical servers and algorithms like Marzullo's intersection to compute offsets, accounting for round-trip delays and achieve sub-millisecond accuracy over wide-area networks. Addressing in communication protocols provides unambiguous identification of endpoints, enabling directed transmission and routing across interconnected systems. Logical addresses, distinct from physical hardware identifiers, support scalability by abstracting host locations. In the Internet Protocol (IPv4), defined in RFC 791 from September 1981, each datagram header includes 32-bit source and destination addresses, structured into network (for routing domains) and host portions via class-based allocation—Class A for large networks (7-bit network, 24-bit host), Class B (14-bit network, 16-bit host), and Class C (21-bit network, 8-bit host). Gateways examine the destination address to forward packets, with options like source routing specifying paths.[55] Transport-layer addressing refines network-level identifiers by incorporating port numbers (16-bit fields in protocols like TCP and UDP) for process-specific demultiplexing on a host. Link-layer addressing, such as 48-bit MAC addresses in Ethernet, handles local delivery within broadcast domains before higher-layer routing. These layered addressing schemes ensure end-to-end delivery while distributing routing logic, with multicast and broadcast variants extending unicast for group communication.[54]Design Principles
Layering and Modularity
Layering in communication protocol design organizes functionality into a stack of discrete layers, each handling a specific subset of communication tasks while providing services to the layer above and relying on the layer below. This hierarchical structure decomposes the overall communication process into manageable modules, enabling independent development, testing, and maintenance of each layer.[56] The International Organization for Standardization formalized this approach in the OSI reference model (ISO/IEC 7498-1:1994), defining seven layers: physical (bit transmission), data link (framing and error detection), network (routing and addressing), transport (end-to-end reliability), session (dialog control), presentation (data formatting), and application (user interface). Layering promotes abstraction, where upper layers interact with lower ones via well-defined interfaces, hiding implementation details and fostering interoperability across diverse systems.[57] Modularity, intertwined with layering, emphasizes designing protocols with loosely coupled, interchangeable components that can be modified or extended without disrupting the entire system. In protocol architectures, this manifests as standardized service interfaces between layers, allowing protocol variants—such as different transport mechanisms atop a common network layer—to coexist.[58] The TCP/IP protocol suite exemplifies this, structuring into link, internet (IP), transport (TCP/UDP), and application layers, which supports modular evolution; for instance, IP version 6 (IPv6, standardized in RFC 8200, 2017) replaced IPv4 (RFC 791, 1981) in the network layer without altering upper layers. Modularity facilitates scalability and innovation, as seen in the addition of protocols like HTTP/3 (RFC 9114, 2022) over QUIC, which integrates transport and application functions to bypass traditional layering constraints for better performance. Despite these advantages, layering and modularity introduce trade-offs, including processing overhead from interlayer data encapsulation and potential performance penalties from enforced boundaries. RFC 817 (1981) highlights how excessive modularity in implementations can degrade efficiency by prioritizing abstraction over optimized code paths, necessitating careful balancing in protocol design. Empirical studies confirm that while layering simplifies complexity—reducing design errors in large-scale networks—it can ossify protocols if interfaces become rigid, complicating adaptations to new hardware or threats.[19] Thus, modern designs often relax strict layering, as in software-defined networking (SDN), where control plane modularity separates from data plane forwarding to enhance flexibility without full restacking.[59]Design Patterns and Architectures
Communication protocols incorporate design patterns to address recurring challenges in message handling, state management, and system organization. The protocol system pattern structures the overall architecture by defining protocol entities, interfaces to the environment, and peer communications, enabling modular implementation of protocol stacks.[60] This pattern separates concerns between internal protocol logic and external interactions, facilitating interoperability across diverse systems.[60] The protocol entity pattern models discrete components, such as layers or modules, that maintain internal states, storage for session data, and interfaces for peer entity exchanges.[60] Each entity handles multiple sessions concurrently, ensuring isolation of protocol behaviors from application logic.[60] Complementing this, the protocol behavior pattern orchestrates message routing, session establishment, and differentiation between connection-oriented (e.g., requiring handshakes for reliability) and connectionless (e.g., datagram-based for efficiency) operations.[60] Finite state machines form a core behavioral pattern in protocol design, representing operational phases and transitions triggered by events like packet receipt or timeouts.[61] For instance, TCP employs a state machine with 11 states, including SYN_SENT for connection initiation and CLOSE_WAIT for orderly shutdown, as specified in RFC 793 published in September 1981. This approach ensures deterministic responses to network conditions, mitigating issues like duplicate acknowledgments through sequence number tracking. Interaction patterns further define architectural flows. The request-response pattern, prevalent in protocols like HTTP/1.1 (standardized in 1997), involves a client sending a method-specific request (e.g., GET) followed by a server-generated response with status codes and payload.[62] In contrast, the publish-subscribe pattern decouples senders from receivers via intermediaries, as in MQTT version 3.1.1 (released in 2014), where publishers dispatch topic-based messages to subscribed clients through a broker, optimizing for low-bandwidth scenarios like sensor networks.[63] Architectural choices emphasize modularity and scalability; client-server architectures centralize control for protocols like SMTP (defined in RFC 821, 1982), directing mail relay through designated servers, while peer-to-peer models in protocols like BitTorrent (initially released in 2001) distribute load across participants for resilient file sharing. These patterns prioritize causal sequencing and error recovery, with empirical evidence from protocol implementations showing reduced latency in stateful designs under high contention, as analyzed in studies of TCP variants.Formal Specification Techniques
Formal specification techniques employ mathematical languages and methods to define communication protocols with precision, enabling unambiguous description, automated verification, and detection of design flaws such as deadlocks or nondeterminism. These techniques mitigate ambiguities inherent in natural language specifications by modeling protocol behavior through formal semantics, facilitating exhaustive analysis via tools like simulators or provers. Developed primarily in the 1980s and 1990s under standards bodies like ITU-T and ISO, they address the complexity of concurrent systems in protocols, where timing, sequencing, and state interactions can lead to failures if not rigorously specified.[64][65] Standardized Formal Description Techniques (FDTs) include Estelle, LOTOS, and SDL, endorsed by ITU-T for OSI reference model protocols. Estelle, based on extended finite state machines, models protocols as modules with states, transitions, and data types, supporting hierarchical decomposition for distributed systems; it was used in specifying protocols like X.25.[66][67] LOTOS, a process algebra derived from CCS and CSP, emphasizes behavioral equivalence through abstract processes, synchronization, and hiding operators, ideal for verifying concurrency in protocols via equivalence checking.[65][68] SDL (Specification and Description Language), a graphical FDT with textual extensions, uses extended finite state machines and message sequence charts for real-time protocol modeling, enabling code generation for implementations; ITU-T Recommendation Z.100 defines its syntax and semantics, applied in telecom protocols like SS7.[66][68] Beyond FDTs, verification-oriented methods like model checking and theorem proving enhance protocol analysis. Model checking exhaustively explores state spaces of finite models (e.g., using Promela in SPIN tool) to verify properties expressed in linear temporal logic (LTL), detecting issues like livelocks in protocols such as TLS handshakes; it scales via abstraction but suffers state explosion for large systems.[69][70] Theorem proving, employing interactive tools like Isabelle or Coq, constructs machine-checked proofs of protocol correctness against specifications in higher-order logic, suitable for infinite-state or cryptographic protocols; it requires manual guidance but provides stronger guarantees, as demonstrated in verifying Needham-Schroeder by abstracting authentication properties.[71][72] These techniques, often combined (e.g., model checking for initial validation followed by proving), have proven causal efficacy in reducing protocol errors, with empirical studies showing formal specs catch 70-90% of faults missed by informal reviews.[73][74] Limitations include high learning curves and incomplete tool support for real-time aspects, prompting hybrid approaches with simulation.[75]Development and Standardization
Necessity of Standards for Interoperability
Standards in communication protocols establish a common framework for syntax, semantics, timing, and error handling, enabling devices and systems from diverse manufacturers to exchange data reliably without custom adaptations.[76] This uniformity addresses the fundamental coordination challenge in networked environments, where unilateral implementations by individual entities would otherwise result in incompatible formats and behaviors, confining communication to proprietary silos.[3] Absent such standards, scaling interoperability across multiple vendors incurs exponential costs, as pairwise integrations demand N(N-1)/2 custom solutions rather than a single shared specification.[77] Proprietary protocols exemplify these limitations, often prioritizing vendor-specific optimizations that hinder cross-system connectivity and foster lock-in, as seen in legacy enterprise networks where non-standardized implementations fragmented data flows and escalated integration expenses.[78] For example, early telecommunications systems relying on closed protocols from dominant players like AT&T restricted interoperability until open standards emerged, demonstrating how vendor control over protocol details perpetuates isolation and stifles network expansion.[79] In contrast, standardized protocols mitigate these issues by enforcing verifiable compliance, allowing independent verification and reducing reliance on trusted intermediaries. The historical transition to TCP/IP illustrates the causal role of standards in achieving broad interoperability. Initially, ARPANET employed the Network Control Program (NCP), which sufficed for homogeneous connections but faltered as heterogeneous networks proliferated in the late 1970s. Standardization via RFC 791 for IP on September 1, 1981, and RFC 793 for TCP on the same date provided a vendor-neutral suite that routed packets across disparate underlying technologies, enabling the interconnection of over 200 networks by 1983 and laying the foundation for the global Internet. [80] This shift not only resolved immediate compatibility barriers but also permitted modular evolution, where upper-layer protocols could innovate atop a stable transport layer without disrupting core connectivity. Empirical outcomes underscore the necessity: networks adhering to standards like Ethernet (IEEE 802.3, ratified 1983) achieved multi-vendor compatibility, contrasting with pre-standard eras where competing physical layer variants precluded seamless integration. Without such benchmarks, modern distributed systems—from IoT ecosystems to cloud infrastructures—would devolve into incompatible clusters, amplifying deployment risks and curtailing collaborative advancements.[81] Thus, standards serve as the indispensable mechanism for causal interoperability, transforming potential anarchy into structured, scalable communication.Key Standards Organizations and Processes
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) serves as the principal organization for developing Internet protocols, operating through a consensus-driven model that produces Request for Comments (RFCs) as its core outputs. Established informally in 1986 and formalized under the Internet Society, the IETF's standards process—detailed in RFC 2026 (BCP 9)—progresses documents from Internet Drafts, requiring working group review and multiple iterations, to Proposed Standard status after at least two independent implementations demonstrate interoperability, and ultimately to Internet Standard upon proven stability and deployment.[82][83] This "rough consensus and running code" approach prioritizes practical implementation over theoretical specification, with over 9,000 RFCs published by 2025, governing protocols like TCP/IP.[84] The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standards Association focuses on standards for local and metropolitan area networks, including Ethernet (IEEE 802.3, first published in 1983 and revised over 30 times) and Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11 series, with the latest 802.11be amendment approved in 2024). Its six-stage development process begins with project initiation via a Standards Committee (e.g., IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee), followed by working group drafting, sponsor balloting requiring at least 75% approval from diverse stakeholders, public review, and IEEE Standards Board approval, ensuring openness, balance, and due process under ANSI accreditation.[85] The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) develops global Recommendations for telecommunication protocols, such as the V-series for data communication over telephone networks (e.g., V.92 modem standard from 2002) and X-series for open systems interconnection (e.g., X.25 packet-switched protocol from 1976). Operating through 38 study groups, the process involves sector membership contributions, consensus agreement during four-year study period cycles, and approval by the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, with over 4,000 Recommendations in force as of 2025 emphasizing international harmonization for legacy and emerging networks like NGN.[86][87] The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) collaborate via Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 6 (JTC 1/SC 6) on telecommunications and information exchange protocols, including contributions to the OSI reference model (ISO/IEC 7498-1:1994). Standards development follows ISO's multi-stage process: proposal, preparatory, committee, enquiry (with national body voting), approval, and publication, requiring two-thirds committee and four-fifths national body approval, often jointly with IEC for electrotechnical aspects like ISO/IEC 8802 series (adopted IEEE 802 standards).[88][89] These bodies coordinate with IETF and IEEE to avoid duplication, as seen in fast-track adoptions.OSI Model and Historical Standardization Efforts
The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model, developed as a conceptual framework for understanding and standardizing network communications, divides protocol functions into seven layers: physical, data link, network, transport, session, presentation, and application.[90] This layered approach aimed to promote interoperability among heterogeneous computer systems by defining clear boundaries for protocol responsibilities, enabling independent development and implementation at each level.[91] The model emerged from efforts to address the fragmentation caused by proprietary networking technologies in the 1970s, such as those from IBM's Systems Network Architecture and Digital Equipment Corporation's DECnet, which hindered cross-vendor connectivity.[19] Standardization efforts for the OSI model began in 1977 under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), specifically through its Technical Committee 97 (TC97) on Information Processing Systems.[90] By late 1979, ISO TC97 adopted initial recommendations as the basis for OSI development, formalizing a reference model that prioritized open, vendor-neutral protocols over closed systems.[92] In May 1983, ISO published ISO 7498 as the "Basic Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection," establishing it as an international standard after merging parallel initiatives from ISO and the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT, now ITU-T).[19] This timeline reflected collaborative input from national standards bodies, including the European Computer Manufacturers Association and U.S. representatives, though bureaucratic delays in protocol specification extended into the late 1980s.[91] Historical standardization pushed beyond the model to create an actual OSI protocol suite, with ISO and CCITT issuing standards like X.25 for packet switching (network layer) and X.400 for message handling (application layer) in the early 1980s.[19] Governments, including the U.S. under the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), mandated OSI conformance for federal procurements by 1985 to foster global adoption, yet implementation lagged due to the complexity of aligning seven layers across diverse hardware.[92] By the early 1990s, while the OSI model influenced protocol design universally, its full protocol stack saw limited commercial uptake, overshadowed by the simpler, deployable TCP/IP suite originating from U.S. Department of Defense ARPANET projects in 1980.[91][19] These efforts underscored the tension between theoretical rigor in international consensus-building and practical demands for rapid, iterative deployment in evolving networks.[90]Challenges and Evolution
Protocol Ossification and Middlebox Effects
Protocol ossification describes the process by which deployed network infrastructure, including endpoints and intermediate devices, rigidly enforces a narrow interpretation of a protocol's wire format, rendering extensions or modifications incompatible and stifling evolution. This phenomenon arises as protocols mature and widespread adoption entrenches specific behaviors, making the network resistant to innovation; for instance, as network scale increases, even minor changes risk breakage across diverse ecosystems.[93][94] Middleboxes—such as firewalls, network address translators (NATs), and deep packet inspection devices—exacerbate ossification by actively parsing, modifying, or discarding packets that deviate from expected patterns, often prioritizing security or policy enforcement over protocol flexibility. These devices affect more than one-third of Internet paths, with substantial portions experiencing feature-breaking or protocol-altering interference, as essential manipulations like NAT traversal conflict with extensible designs.[95][96] By invalidating the end-to-end principle through interference with unknown options or headers, middleboxes block legitimate protocol updates; for example, TCP extensions introducing new options are frequently dropped if unrecognized, limiting adaptations for performance or security.[97][98] The effects manifest in stalled protocol development, where attempts to add features—such as congestion control refinements or header extensions—fail due to ossified expectations, compelling developers to deploy entirely new protocols rather than iterate on existing ones. This has historically impacted TCP, where middlebox-induced rigidity slowed responses to emerging needs like multipath support, and contributed to the design of QUIC for HTTP/3, which encrypts packet payloads and headers to obscure internals from middleboxes, thereby reducing ossification risks while enabling faster iteration.[99][97] Recent measurements indicate that around 40% of paths encounter middlebox disruptions, underscoring ongoing challenges in maintaining protocol agility amid pervasive deployment of such devices.[100] Mitigation strategies, including encryption-at-transport and version negotiation, aim to restore evolvability, though they introduce trade-offs in debugging and middlebox traversal.[99][98]Security Vulnerabilities and Mitigation Strategies
Communication protocols, foundational to network interactions, are susceptible to vulnerabilities arising from inherent design choices, implementation errors, and deployment in untrusted environments. A primary concern is the lack of built-in confidentiality in protocols like early TCP/IP, enabling eavesdropping attacks where attackers intercept plaintext data in transit, as documented in foundational analyses of the TCP/IP protocol suite's security shortcomings.[101] Spoofing attacks, such as IP address or TCP sequence number prediction, exploit predictable identifiers or insufficient randomization, allowing impersonation and session hijacking; for instance, transient numeric identifiers like port numbers or sequence numbers, when poorly generated, facilitate off-path attacks.[102] Denial-of-service (DoS) vulnerabilities, including TCP SYN flooding, overwhelm resources by exploiting handshake mechanisms without completing connections, a flaw persisting in misconfigured implementations despite known mitigations.[103] Protocol ossification, where middleboxes enforce rigid interpretations, indirectly heightens risks by impeding upgrades to secure variants, trapping systems in vulnerable states as networks resist evolutionary changes.[104] Implementation-specific flaws compound protocol-level issues, such as buffer overflows or improper error handling in protocol stacks, leading to remote code execution, as seen in historical cases like the exploitation of weak checksums in TCP. Cross-protocol interactions introduce additional risks, where attackers leverage mismatches between protocols (e.g., HTTP over unsecured FTP) to bypass filters or downgrade security. In resource-constrained environments like IoT, protocols such as CoAP or MQTT face amplified threats from unencrypted channels and weak authentication, enabling man-in-the-middle (MitM) interception or replay attacks.[105] Mitigation strategies emphasize layered defenses and adherence to standards. Cryptographic encapsulation via Transport Layer Security (TLS) or IPsec provides confidentiality, integrity, and authentication, countering eavesdropping and tampering; TLS 1.3, standardized in 2018, mitigates downgrade attacks through mandatory encryption and improved key exchange.[106] For DoS resilience, SYN cookies enable stateless handling of connection requests, verifying legitimacy without resource allocation, as outlined in IETF guidance. Robust identifier generation—randomizing ports, sequence numbers, and nonces—thwarts prediction-based attacks, with RFC 9416 recommending entropy sources and range restrictions to prevent flaws like port zero usage.[101] [102] Deployment practices further bolster security: rate limiting and SYN proxying defend against floods, while mutual authentication via certificates or tokens prevents spoofing.[107] To address ossification, protocol designers incorporate encapsulation (e.g., QUIC over UDP) to evade middlebox interference, facilitating incremental upgrades without breaking legacy infrastructure. Regular auditing against known flaws, per IETF RFCs, and timely patching of implementations remain essential, though ossification often delays adoption of fixes.[97] Firewalls and intrusion detection systems (IDS) enforce protocol conformance, blocking malformed packets, but must balance scrutiny with performance to avoid introducing new bottlenecks.[108] Overall, effective mitigation requires prioritizing end-to-end security models over perimeter defenses, informed by empirical threat modeling rather than unverified assumptions of network benevolence.Recent Developments and Innovations
The QUIC protocol, formalized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in RFC 9000, has driven substantial improvements in transport-layer efficiency by multiplexing streams over UDP, mitigating TCP's head-of-line blocking, and embedding TLS 1.3 for zero-round-trip encryption, enabling sub-100ms connection setups in high-latency networks. By mid-2024, HTTP/3—built atop QUIC—comprised over 25% of global web traffic, reflecting widespread deployment by major content providers to reduce page load times by up to 20% in mobile scenarios compared to HTTP/2 over TCP.[109][110] This shift has prompted network operators to adapt middleboxes and firewalls for UDP-based flows, as QUIC's encryption obscures traffic patterns traditionally inspectable via TCP.[111] In wireless domains, 5G core protocols like the Service-Based Architecture (SBA) using HTTP/2 have evolved toward QUIC integration for 6G research, supporting ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) with end-to-end encryption and multipath capabilities to handle heterogeneous networks including non-terrestrial elements like low-Earth-orbit satellites. Nokia's 2025 analysis highlights QUIC's role in 6G for integrity-protected multiplexing, potentially reducing latency variability by 30-50% in edge-to-cloud handoffs.[112] Concurrently, IoT protocols such as MQTT 5.0 and CoAP have advanced with enhanced security features, including mandatory TLS and shared-session resumption, to secure the projected 18.8 billion connected devices by end-2024 amid rising cyber threats.[113][114] Post-quantum cryptography protocols have gained traction against emerging quantum threats, with NIST finalizing three standards—ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA—in August 2024 for key encapsulation, digital signatures, and stateless hashing, respectively, to replace vulnerable RSA and ECC in protocols like TLS. These algorithms, tested for resistance to harvest-now-decrypt-later attacks, are being hybridized into existing suites, as seen in Apple's PQ3 for iMessage in 2024, ensuring forward secrecy without performance degradation exceeding 10% in bandwidth-constrained links.[115][116] Quantum key distribution (QKD) pilots, meanwhile, demonstrated commercial viability in 2025 trials over fiber distances exceeding 100 km, though scalability remains limited by photon loss rates above 0.2 dB/km.[117]Taxonomies and Analytical Frameworks
Comprehensive Protocol Taxonomies
Communication protocols are systematically classified using layered reference models that delineate responsibilities across abstraction levels, with the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model and the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) model serving as foundational taxonomies. The OSI model, standardized by the International Organization for Standardization in 1984, partitions protocol functions into seven layers to promote interoperability: Physical (bit transmission over media), Data Link (framing and error detection), Network (routing and addressing), Transport (end-to-end reliability), Session (dialog control), Presentation (data syntax and encryption), and Application (user interfaces)./U0611174180.pdf) This hierarchical taxonomy enables modular design, where protocols at each layer interact via well-defined interfaces, as evidenced by implementations like X.25 at the Network layer for packet-switched networks./U0611174180.pdf) In contrast, the TCP/IP model, developed in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Defense and formalized through Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) requests for comments (RFCs), employs a four-layer structure: Link (hardware interfacing), Internet (packet routing via IP), Transport (data delivery via TCP or UDP), and Application (services like HTTP).[118] This pragmatic taxonomy underpins the Internet, with TCP providing reliable, connection-oriented delivery—establishing virtual circuits via three-way handshakes—while UDP offers lightweight, connectionless datagrams for low-latency applications.[118] Protocol examples include ARP for address resolution at the Link layer and BGP for inter-domain routing at the Internet layer, handling over 900,000 routes as of 2023.[7] Beyond layered models, protocols are taxonomized by operational paradigms, such as connection-oriented versus connectionless. Connection-oriented protocols, like TCP (defined in RFC 793, 1981), negotiate sessions, sequence data, and retransmit lost packets, ensuring ordered delivery with mechanisms for congestion control via algorithms like Reno or Cubic, which adjust window sizes based on round-trip time and loss rates. Connectionless protocols, exemplified by UDP (RFC 768, 1980) and IP (RFC 791, 1981), transmit datagrams independently without setup or guarantees, prioritizing speed for applications like DNS queries resolving over 1.5 billion domains daily.[7] This dichotomy balances reliability against efficiency, with empirical data showing TCP's overhead—adding 20 bytes per segment—versus UDP's minimal 8-byte header.[118] Additional taxonomies classify protocols by communication scope and multiplicity: unicast (one-to-one, e.g., standard TCP/IP), multicast (one-to-many, e.g., IGMP for group addressing per RFC 1112, 1989), anycast (one-to-nearest, used in DNS root servers), and broadcast (one-to-all, limited to local networks via Ethernet frames).[119] Functional taxonomies further segment by role, including routing protocols like OSPF (RFC 2328, 1998) for interior gateway computation using Dijkstra's algorithm on link-state databases, and application-layer protocols such as SMTP (RFC 5321, 2008) for email relay, processing 361.7 billion messages daily in 2023.[7] These classifications, grounded in standards from bodies like the IETF, facilitate analysis of protocol evolution, such as shifts toward QUIC (RFC 9000, 2021) integrating transport and application layers for reduced latency in HTTP/3.[120]| Taxonomy Dimension | Categories | Examples | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layered (OSI) | Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, Application | Ethernet (Physical/Data Link), IP (Network), TCP (Transport) | Modular abstraction; service-interface-protocol separation/U0611174180.pdf) |
| Layered (TCP/IP) | Link, Internet, Transport, Application | ARP (Link), BGP (Internet), HTTP (Application) | Implementation-focused; powers 99% of Internet traffic[118] |
| Connection Management | Oriented, Less | TCP (oriented), UDP (less) | Handshake vs datagram; reliability vs speed trade-off |
| Addressing Multiplicity | Unicast, Multicast, Anycast, Broadcast | TCP (unicast), IGMP (multicast) | Scalability for group communications; broadcast limited to LANs[119] |
