E. Harslen J. Heafner Network Working Group RANL Request for Comments: 50 4/30/70
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.
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 the process to whom he wishes to communicate.
b) The additional duplex connection can provide some superfisory control over process behavior, possibly in conjunction with the interrupt procedure.
c) Most of the other proposed methods demand queueing.
We think there must be a standard UCC, yet we encourage parallel experimental UCCs.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] [ into the online RFC archives by Gary Okada 7/97 ]