English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Standards govern the SHOULD and MUST requirements for protocol implementersfor interoperability. In case of TCP that carries the bulk of the Internets'traffic, these requirements are defined in RFCs. While it is known that not alloptional features are implemented and nonconformance exists, one would assumethat TCP implementations at least conform to the minimum set of MUSTrequirements. In this paper, we use Internet-wide scans to show how Internethosts and paths conform to these basic requirements. We uncover anon-negligible set of hosts and paths that do not adhere to even basicrequirements. For example, we observe hosts that do not correctly handlechecksums and cases of middlebox interference for TCP options. We identifyhosts that drop packets when the urgent pointer is set or simply crash. Ourpublicly available results highlight that conformance to even fundamentalprotocol requirements should not be taken for granted but instead checkedregularly.

MUST, SHOULD, DON'T CARE: TCP Conformance in the Wild