RFC489 - Comment on resynchronization of connection status proposal

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 RFC467

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 RFCwas put into machine readable form for entry ]

[ into the online RFCarchives by Alex McKenzie with ]

[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 9/99 ]