Output of the Host-Host Protocol glitch cleaning committee (RFC0102)
Original Publication Date: 1971-Feb-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-10
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
Network Working Group Steve Crocker, Chairman Request for Comments: 102 at BBN, Cambridge NIC#5763 22, 23 February 1971
OUTPUT OF THE HOST/HOST PROTOCOL GLITCH CLEANING COMMITTEE
At the NWG meeting in Urbana on 17-19 February 1971, a committee was established to look at the Host/Host protocol and see what changes were immediately desirable or necessary.
The committee is chaired by Steve Crocker, and has eight other members:
Ray Tomlinson BBN (Tenex)
Jim White UCSB
Gary Grossman Illinois
Tom Barkalow Lincoln (TX2)
Will Crowther BBN (IMPs)
Bob Bressler MIT (Dynamic Modeling
Doug McKay IBM (Yorktown)
Dan Murphy BBN (Tenex)
A number of topics were discussed. On some of these topics, a consensus was reached on whether or not to recommend a change, and if so, what the change should be. On the remaining topics, specific alternatives were proposed but no consensus was reached.
The committee will immediately canvas the network community and gather reaction to its recommendations and the proposed alternatives. The committee will then reconvene at UCLA on 8 March 1971 and decide on final recommendations. Steve Crocker will then write Document #2. This sequence is in lieu of the change procedure outlined in NWG/RFC 53.
Crocker [Page 1]
RFC 102 HOST/HOST PROTOCOL GLITCH CLEANING COMMITTEE February 1971
1. The ECO and ERP command should each be 8 bits long.
2. The ERR command should be 96 bits long.
3. Message Data Types should be eliminated. Third-level protocol people may reinstate such a mechanism.
4. The Cease mechanism should be discontinued.
5. A new pair of one byte commands RST (reset) and RRP (reset reply) should be added. The RST should be interpreted as a signal to purge the NCP tables of any existing entries which arose from the sending Host. The RRP command should be returned to acknowledge receipt of the RST. The Host sending the RST may proceed after receiving either a RST or a RRP in return. A RST may be returned if the second Host comes up after the first Host.
6. Although it was suggested at the Urbana meeting that connections should be full-duplex, the committee recommends against this change.
7. Messages should be an integral number of bytes, and the number of bytes and the byte size should be specified in each message. The marking convention should be abandoned and the padding ignored.
The number of bytes in the message should be a 16-bit number following the leader. The byte size should be in the next 8-bit field. Two suggestions were generated for the starting point of the text, and these are explained in the next session.
For flow control purposes, the number of bits in a message is the product of the number of bytes and the byte size. The leader and other fixed format fields are not counted.
8. The problem of synchronizing the interrupt signal in a console input stream was considered. We consider the console input scanner as a process and note two reasonable implementations: it may either read characters as...