Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group A. Shoshani Request for Comments: 44 R. Long

                                                          A. Landsberg
                                        System Development Corporation
                                                         10 April 1970
                   Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36
 Generally, we are satisfied with the suggestions for the new Host-
 to-Host protocol.  However, we think that a few refinements may be
 I.   It seems that there are two cases of reconnection:
   1. Reconnect from a socket in a local Host to another socket in the
      local Host.  This was referred to in RFC #33 as "switch".  The
      local sockets can belong to different processes (such as the
      "Login" process switching a connection to another process just
      created) or can belong to the same process (such as a process
      that accepts calls for connections on a particular socket, and
      after a connection is established switches to another of his
   2. Reconnect from a socket at a local Host to a socket in a foreign
   We suggest separation of these two cases for the following reasons:
   a) Reconnection in Case 1 is necessary and useful, while the
      usefulness of Case 2 is still in doubt.
   b) Case 1 is simple to implement (at least conceptually) while Case
      2 involves an elaborate mechanism of commands because of the
      asynchronous nature of the network (four out of nine commands
      were suggested to handle Case 2 in RFC #36).
   Thus we think that at least in the first usage of the Host-to-Host
   protocol reconnection in Case 2 should be left out.  An additional
   system call (not a command) is therefore needed to permit Case 1,
   which is SWITCH <socket 1> <socket 2>.
 II.  The CLOSE command as suggested in RFC #36 seems to be used for
      two purposes: block a connection and abort a connection.  To
      avoid ambiguity it would be desirable to have two commands:
      BLOCK and CLOSE.  As suggested in RFC #36, the response for both
      commands can be the SUSPEND command which acknowledges the
      reception of BLOCK or CLOSE commands.

Shoshani, et al. [Page 1] RFC 44 Comments on NWG/RFC 33 & 36 April 1970

 III. After a connection has been established, we see no reason for
      keeping the "foreign socket" in a local connection table.  Since
      there is a one-to-one correspondence between a link number of
      the foreign Host and a foreign socket number, we can use the
      link number in the commands.  Thus, except for the RFC command,
      all commands can use link numbers and therefore eliminate a 40-
      bit foreign socket number in every entry of the connection table
      (size being critical for some Hosts).  We note that if
      connections will be multiplexed over links as suggested in RFC
      #38, then the foreign socket would be needed in the connection
 IV.  In RFC#33 the term PORT was introduced.  Although this is
      private to every Host, we have a comment.  If ports are used
      such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a port
      for some user and a socket, then ports are completely redundant.
      However, a Host may wish to multiplex ports over connections, in
      which case an additional mechanism is needed.
 To summarize the last four comments, we suggest that in the initial
 version the following system calls and commands will be used (most of
 them in RFC 33 and 36).
 System Calls:
 1) INITIATE <my socket> <your socket>
 2) ACCEPT  <my socket>
 3) SWITCH <socket 1> <socket 2>
 4) LISTEN <my socket>
 5) CLOSE <my socket>
 6) TRANSMIT <my socket> <address>
 Commands 0, 1, 3, 4 as in RFC #36 (pp.5) and in addition:
 1) BLOCK: BLK <link>
 2) CLOSE: CLS <link>
 V.   In addition to the above it seems necessary to decide on the
      following issues one way or the other together with the first
      version of the protocol (perhaps by setting a date for people to
      express their preferences and decide accordingly).  All of these
      issues were mentioned in the meeting at UCLA on March 17, 1970,
      but were put aside.
      1. "Double padding" - when a message does not end on a word
         boundary.  Two possible solutions were mentioned:
         a) Hosts provide their padding in addition to the IMP's
            padding (double padding).

Shoshani, et al. [Page 2] RFC 44 Comments on NWG/RFC 33 & 36 April 1970

         b) Hosts make sure that all messages end on a word boundary
            by shifting their messages (when necessary) and adjusting
            the "marking" accordingly.
      2. "Echoing" - there are three apparent possibilities:
         a) Echoing
         b) No echoing
         c) Optional Echoing - possibly a bit in the "Leader" can be
            used to designate this option.
      3. "Code Conversion" - originally, BB&N suggested doing the
         conversion in the IMPs  using ASCII-8 as the common code.
         This was rejected, mainly because of claims that ASCII-8 is
         not large enough for some uses, such as graphics.  Also
         conversion in the IMPs may slow them down and take up space
         which could be used for buffers.  We feel that it is very
         desirable to have a common code (even when the conversion is
         not done by the IMPs), such that all incoming text messages
         are in the same code and only one conversion table is needed.
         Outgoing text messages should be converted into this common
         code.  Obviously, the option "no translation" should be
         possible for the purpose of binary data or data that is not
         representable in the common code.  Since every known code can
         be considered to be too restrictive for some purposes, we
         suggest adopting a Network Common Code (NCC), and use all of
         the 256 possible characters (for 8-bit code) to include the
         "important" part of the union of the codes used throughout
         the network.
 VI.   Our preference to the above issues is as follows:
      a) "Double padding" -it turns out to be easy for us to get our
         messages to be sent on a word boundary by shifting the leader
         of a message (and adjusting the "marking" accordingly) rather
         than the data.  Thus we will prefer solution V.1.b).
      b) "Echoing" - we prefer no echoing.  We think that character
         echoing should be managed locally.
      c) "Code Conversion" we prefer a Network Common Code.
         Initially, ASCII-8 can be used, and then expanded according
         to the needs of the Network.
     [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
    [ into the online RFC archives by Alison De La Cruz 12/00 ]

Shoshani, et al. [Page 3]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc44.txt · Last modified: 2001/03/17 00:33 by

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki