TCP/IP takes into consideration anybody to compose a convention on top of it since it decouples the exchange of the information from the semantics of the information itself, i.e. TCP/IP does not mind what information is being exchanged. 

I am not mindful of any such assets, and would be astonished if there existed any assets that reveal to you how to compose a convention. I say this on the grounds that a convention can essentially do anything, and all things considered there are no guidelines to characterizing one. It's what you characterize as tenets that makes a convention. Also, what you characterize ought to be represented by what you need your application to do. 

In the realm of systems administration, there are 2 essential elements that speak with each other: the Server and the Client, and both ought to know your convention. Regularly a Client is the initiator of the TCP association. The Server sits latently tuning in on a TCP port for associations from Clients. Once the TCP association has been set up, the customer and the server can start talking your convention. 

To utilize your own thought that you need an iOS application that discussions your convention, well you'll require 2 renditions of the application, one that acts as a server and the other that carries on as the customer. At that point you have to characterize what ought to the convention do. For effortlessness, lets simply say that when a customer application associates with the server application, the server application reacts with a "Welcome" and disengages the TCP association. This is an inconsequential case however it IS a convention. 

The upsides of utilizing your own convention depend particularly on the unique situation. Regularly you would characterize a convention when you understand that the current conventions don't fill the need you require, or maybe when a current convention has a ton of components that you needn't bother with. 

For instance, routers normally connect with 192.168.1.1, but that could be rewire to 192.168.0.1, also Video Streaming regularly utilizes UDP rather than TCP since TCP has highlights like parcel re-transmission if there should be an occurrence of a bundle misfortune. For spilling applications this is a needless excess. You need the video information to be conveyed as and when it is accessible to the application on top of the vehicle layer and the way that a parcel is lost has little impact in gushing. Be that as it may, TCP additionally a component of parcel affirmations, which UDP does not give.