Browse Prior Art Database

Comments on the Meyer Proposal (RFC0050)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003636D
Original Publication Date: 1970-Apr-30
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 4K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

E. Harslem: AUTHOR [+2]

Abstract

We find the Meyer proposal (Note #46) to be the most acceptable to dare, for exactly the reasons that he enumerates; viz., simple, suffices for most planned uses of the Network, easy to implement, can be extended. It does not encompass everything that has been suggested recently, however, we do agree with the items that are proposed and we feel that the missing features are probably not worth doing battle over and thus delaying the specification.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 69% of the total text.

E. Harslen

J. Heafner

Network Working Group RANL

Request for Comments: 50 4/30/70

Comments on the Meyer Proposal

------------------------------

We find the Meyer proposal (Note #46) to be the most acceptable

to dare, for exactly the reasons that he enumerates; viz., simple,

suffices for most planned uses of the Network, easy to implement,

can be extended. It does not encompass everything that has been

suggested recently, however, we do agree with the items that are

proposed and we feel that the missing features are probably not

worth doing battle over and thus delaying the specification.

We make the following comments on the seven issues rasied in

Note #47.

1) We agree with Steve that dynamic reconnection will later

be required for more sophisticated uses of the Network.

We also agree with the Project MAC people that it

unnecessary initially. A better job can be done of dynamic

reconnection given some Network experience and the specific

needs of its use.

2) INT is easy to implement and serves a useful purpose.

3) We favor including a sub-field for instance tag identifier.

We see the need for both cases; a) where multiple processes

should appear indistinguishable, and b) where a given

user owning multiple processes must distinguish among

them. Those program parts that should not distinguish

among processes should simply ignore the instance tag.

Tom's suggestion to use part of the user number sub-field

merely reduces the combined length of sub-fields from 32

bits to 24 bits; the problem remains.

4) We disagree with both Steve and MAC in that no special

structure should be imposed on the data transmitted. We

prefer the "message data type" mentioned by E. I. Ancona,

Note #42, page 1. An example of its use was cited in

Note #39, page 2, transmit vs broadcast.

With regard to a standard character set, we strongly

support adopting one in the beginning, and in particular

ASCII. We have observed that most sites have previously

suggested ASCII. Is there anyone who objects?

5) Word boundary alignment is more attractive than double

padding.

6) Steve's suggestion of short-term queueing of RFCs is

acceptable as an option.

7) We support the UCC in Note #46 for three principle reasons:

a) In general the user should not know the remote socket

code of t...