|
RFC Home |
Full RFC Index |
Recent RFCs |
RFC Standards |
Best Current Practice |
RFC Errata |
1 April RFC |
|
||||||
|
IETF RFC 151
Comments on a proffered official ICP: RFCs 123, 127 Last modified on Wednesday, March 5th, 1997 Permanent link to RFC 151 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 151 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 151 NWG/RFC # 151 A. Shoshani SDC NIC #6755 May 10, 1971 COMMENTS ON A PROFERRED OFFICIAL ICP (RFCs 123, 127) Bob Long at SDC noticed that the order in which messages go out to the network depend on the local NCP. In particular commands may be given priority over data and therefore in the sequence specified for server in RFC 123 (top of Page 3), the last two INIT commands may go out before the data = S on socket = L is sent. (This is the case in the current implementation of SDC's NCP.) The implication is that the user's NCP should be prepared to keep the INIT's it received from the server until the user process gets the data = S and issues two INITs in response. This case is brought up now so that people will think about it before the Atlantic City meeting and comment whether their NCP can tolerate it. It may be necessary to make it explicit in the ICP that the two INITs sent by the server should go out only after the data = S is sent, or even after the user process acknowledges its receipt. I have a more general remark about the ICP. This is a third level protocol and therefore should not alter or ignore procedures of the second level protocol (Host-Host protocol). In particular three remarks seem appropriate: Kreznar PAGE 1 |