faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 489 - Comment on resynchronization of connection status prop

Or Display the document by number

Network Working Group                                     Jon Postel
Request for Comments: #489                                UCLA-NMC
NIC #15298                                                March 26, 1973

       Comment on Resynchronization of Connection Status Proposal

This is a comment on the proposal by Burchfiel and Tomlinson in RFC 467
for a procedure in the host-to host protocol for resynchronization of
connection status.  I endorse their proposal with the following trivial
change.  The commands proposed might be more appropriately be called
"reset connection allocation sender" and "reset connection allocation
receiver" since the only aspect of the connection which is reset is the
allocation.  I therefore use the names RAS and RAR respectively.

The table below shows in overly concise notation my interpretation of
the resynchronizing procedure proposed by Burchfiel and Tomlinson, this
presentation is not intended to supersede their document but to clarify
the procedure.  The sequence shown here can be initiated by either the
sender or receiver either for internally generated reasons or upon the
receipt of a RAS or RAR, if this latter is the case then sender step 5
or receiver step 4 is satisfied.

SENDER                                 RECEIVER

1. Set state to "wait-for-RAR"         1. Set state to "wait-for RAS"
2. Wait till no RFNM outstanding       2. Send RAR
3. Send RAS                            3. Process messages until
4. Process allocates until             4. RAS received then
5. RAR received then                   5. Zero allocation quantities
6. Zero allocation quantities          6. Set state to "open"
7. Set state to "open"                 7. Send a new allocate

       [ 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.             9/99 ]


User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: