Browse Prior Art Database

Discussion on RCTE (RFC0719)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003764D
Original Publication Date: 1976-Jul-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-15
Document File: 2 page(s) / 3K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Postel: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC0719: DOI

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 56% of the total text.

Network Working Group Jon Postel (SRI-ARC) Request for Comments: 719 Jul 76 NIC #36138

Discussion on RCTE

The following is the significant portion of a dialog on RCTE that has followed the publication of RFC 718.

15-Jul-76 Nancy Mimno (BBN-NET)

Jon, I’ve read RFC718 and have got some comments, in particular with respect to the "third problem" or clearing the input buffer part.

1) I believe the stated implementation is backwards: in the normal case of the RCTE mode negotiation, the server sends "WILL RCTE" and the user sends ,"DO RCTE"; the reverse case is thus the server sending "DO RCTE" and the user "WILL RCTE" Also, it is probably wise to say explicitly that the server’s sending "DO RCTE" requires the user process to respond "WILL (or WON’T) RCTE" and that this response is the synchronizing mark.

2) The problem is a real one and I think the RCTE protocol would be better with a "clear input, reset counters" function. The question is Ill now to do it. In talking with Rav yesterday, I learned that he had this in mind as a general function, not restricted to RCTE; in fact, TENEX sends the "reverse RCTE" option for "clear your input buffer" whether or not the connection is in RCTE mode. In this case, the statement about "cannot be confused with the normal use of the RCTE option" will not always be true. I think we both agreed that the current solution should just be an interim one.

3) I suggest a different way of performing this function, using the synch-datamark sequence. First, the RCTE option would have to explicitly require that this function reset the counters and cause a "clear your input buffer (of data)", all synchronized with the datamark of course. This is pretty much what it is now except for the reset counters; receiving Synch-data mark when in RCTE probably needed defining anyhow. Because RCTE won’t work unless both sides agree, the "clear input and reset counters" meaning for synch-data mark would have to be a mandatory part of the RCTE option. Second, since the Synch-data mark is a "one-way" function, there needs to be a way for one side of the connection to tell the other side to "send me a Synch-data mark". The New Telnet protocol spec implied that Abort Output could be used for that purpose; if hot, then perhaps a new function could be defined. Again, the RCTE option should make some explicit statement requiring (or very strongLy recommendin...

Processing...
Loading...