Network Working Group                                      Stephen WolfeRFC # 692                                                  UCLA CCNNIC # 32734                                                June 20, 1975       COMMENTS ON IMP/HOST PROTOCOL CHANGES, (RFCS 687 AND 690)Basically, the proposed set of changes in RFC 687 seems reasonable, asare the comments in RFC 690.The major problem, as pointed out by Postel, is the change in thecombined length of the IMP and Host leaders to a total of 120 bits,which is not a multiple of both 8 and 36 bits.The suggested solution is to increase the length of the host to hostprotocol leader by 24 bits, creating a total length of 144 bits.  Theproblem, however, is that the only way of compatibly changing thislength would be to have the IMP either insert or delete the extra 24bits when converting to/from the old format leader.  The problems withthis solution are obvious.The better solution is to change the length of the new proposed IMPleader. I suggest 104 bits instead of 80 bits.  The complaint that 104is not a multiple of an IMP word is valid, but it should not be thatdifficult if the following rules are observed.    1.  The last 8 bits are never used to convey information.    2.  The network is not required to pass them from source to        destination, or to return them to the source.    3.  When sending messages of types other than zero, (irregular        messages), the IMP is allowed to send either 96, 104 or 112 bits        of data, the choice being at the IMP's convenience.    4.  Also, if desired, either 96 or 112 could be used as the new        leader length for irregular messages.It must be faster (and cheaper) to just change the IMP program to handlea 104 bit leader, than to force additional changes in all hosts usingthe standard protocol.Another suggested extension to the protocol would add a new type of IMPto Host message.  This message has a table of Host names (people typecharacter strings) and Host network addresses.  Send this message(s) tothe Host after each interface reset, or alternatively, it could be aresponse to a new Host to IMP request for this information.Wolfe                                                           [Page 1]RFC 692          Comments on IMP/Host Protocol Changes         June 1975       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]       [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with    ]       [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp.            10/99 ]Wolfe                                                           [Page 2]