diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc210.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc210.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc210.txt | 112 |
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] + |