RFC719 - Discussion on RCTE

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

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 RFC718.

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 recommending)

this interpretation of AO. For non-RCTE mode, it's a nice idea but

probably not required. Ray has tentatively agreed- thinks it could

work on Tenex (server side). I would like your comments and Doug

Dodds' (Tenex user RCTE). I don't know of any other existing RCTE

implementations that would have to change. I also don't know what it

-1-

takes to extend official protocols these days, but maybe it's easier

to do that than define a new option (ie reverse RCTE).

Regards,

Nancy

15-Jul-76 Doug Dodds (BBN-RCC)

Nancy,

Your suggestion for the RCTE-clear function being performed by the Au

command (when RCTE is on) is a good one. I see no problem with it

from the side of the Tenex User Telnet (NTELNET). At present NTELNET

is ignoring AO (and some other commands) entirely; this is a good

opportunity to implement it in general.

Doug

21-Jul-76 Jon Postel (SRI-ARC)

I met with Ray Tomlinson for a few minutes to discuss the RCTE-clear

function and other RCTE features. We agreed that Nancy's suggestion

for using the AO command for the clear function made sense. We also

determined that the RCTE document should say something about the

state some other options should be in when using RCTE. For example we

believe that GO-AHEAD must be suppressed while RCTE is in use, that

when one quits RCTE the ECHO mode must be restored to what it was at

the time of entering RCTE,, and that BINARY and RCTE do not make sense

as a combination because every byte would have to be assumed to be a

break character. We also determined that it is unworkable to use

RCTE and no break characters since there is no way to get out of that

state.

22-Jul-76 Jon Postel (SRI-ARC)

As a result of the above discussion I will prepare a revised RCTE

specification document. A draft will be distributed to interested

parties for comments and the final document will be published as an

RFC.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
 
 
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有 導航