summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc210.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc210.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc210.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc210.txt112
1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc210.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc210.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc641bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc210.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Request for Comments # 210 W. Conrad
+Categories C.4 Harvard
+NIC 7189 16 August 71
+
+ Improvement of Flow Control
+
+The current "give back" - "return" scheme seems to put the cart before
+the horse in that the "return" command indicates the amount of space
+the sending host is returning rather than the amount of space it has
+left after decrementing by the amount specified in the "give back"
+command. Considering the fact that allocation counters at sending and
+receiving hosts may get out of synchronization and the fact that the
+receiving host has a preemptive priority in the allocation of its
+resources, it is only logical that the receiving host be able to find
+out exactly how much of its buffer space a sending host thinks it can
+claim.
+
+If the "return" command is to accurately reflect a sending host's
+current allocation, and if successive "give backs" are to produce
+"return" commands which can be properly interpreted, certain race
+conditions must be avoided. A "give back" must be answered by a
+"return" and no more "give backs" can be issued until that "return" is
+received. In some sense, a "return" command as here proposed is
+really a give back reply, and, perhaps, should implemented under that
+name. On the sending side, the "return" command must not be issued as
+long as a data RFNM is awaited on the link to which the "return"
+refers. As soon as the net is clear of data messages, the "return" may
+be sent and data transmission may continue when the RFNM for this
+message containing the "return" command is received.
+
+The current "give back" command uses fractions and has a format
+different from the "allocate" and "return" commands making processing
+unnecessarily complicated. By adopting the convention that allocations
+can not be decremented below zero, one can safely specify absolute
+decrements in a format like that of the "allocate" command. If the
+receiving host's estimate of a suitable decrement is inaccurate, no
+harm is done and the "return" command in response to the "give back"
+provides immediate corrective information.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ [Page 1]
+
+SUMMARY
+
+ Proposal Advantage
+
+1 "Return" specifies amount Provides more pertinent
+ of space left after information and a means
+ decrementing. of resynchronization other
+ than closing connection.
+
+2 "Give Back" must get Provide more accurate
+ "return" in reply and allocation information
+ "return" must not be by eliminating race
+ sent with data on the conditions.
+ link.
+
+3 Eliminate fractions Eliminate messy math
+ from "give back". and provide symmetry
+ to allocation commands
+ making processing easier.
+
+
+
+ [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+ [ into the online RFC archives by Gunnar Reichert 6/97 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ [Page 2]
+