Re: RFC1122 conformance question
kurt@unirsvl.rsvl.unisys.com Thu, 01 October 1992 20:50 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08426; 1 Oct 92 16:50 EDT
Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08422; 1 Oct 92 16:50 EDT
Received: from NNSC.NSF.NET by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19779; 1 Oct 92 16:55 EDT
Received: from nnsc.nsf.net by NNSC.NSF.NET id aa00414; 1 Oct 92 16:43 EDT
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by NNSC.NSF.NET id aa00404; 1 Oct 92 16:42 EDT
Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA28100; Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:42:35 -0400
Received: from s5000.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 164144.5575; Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:41:44 EDT
Received: by unirsvl.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (smail2.5) id AA17149; 1 Oct 92 14:03:16 CDT (Thu)
Subject: Re: RFC1122 conformance question
To: ietf-hosts@nnsc.nsf.net
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 14:03:02 -0500
Cc: 4jde@uunet.uu.net, braden@isi.edu, kurt@uunet.uu.net
In-Reply-To: <9209301510.AA28350@uunet.UU.NET>; from "Mail Delivery Subsystem" at Sep 30, 92 11:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Message-Id: <9210011403.AA17127@unirsvl.RSVL.UNISYS.COM>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
From: kurt@unirsvl.rsvl.unisys.com
> > > > > > Question: If the TCP receives an urgent input and queues the urgent input with > > > an indication that it is urgent on the application's input queue, does this, in > > > your opinion, conform to the above excerpt from RFC1122? > > > > > > > In my opinion, no. The Urgent interface to the application layer is > > intended to solve the problem of the application NOT reading its input, > > eg because it is looping or otherwise mis-behaving. Urgent is intended > > to activate an asynchronous thread (in practice, in the Telnet under- > > belly of the application layer) to unstick things. > From my understanding I thought that the asynchronous notification was needed because in the standard UNIX environment there is only one activity/process per connection. This creates the problem where the activity/process can be looping, or just doing output without checking to see if there is input to process. Since in the case that I described there is an activity dedicated to processing input, this problem doesn't exist. Therefore I would think that in my case, the asynchronous notification would be not applicable instead of a non-conformance. How does that sound? > > > > > > From your description of the host operating system environment, I gather > > that this is not a general-purpose host, which is the intended domain of > > RFC-1122. > > No, this is not a special purpose host, it is the standard Unisys 2200 > mainframe. We have been doing things this way for over 10 years. The 2200 > mainframe has been a multiprocessor machine for approx 20 years. > It is possible for a general purpose host to be something other than a single > processor UNIX box. :-) > > > (But what happens if the application DOES go into a > > loop and stop reading its input?) > > I would assume that it would be the same as if the asynchronous thread did the > same thing. You always have this possibility. > > Since you cc'd the other WG, I pulled it out of the header and am sending this > there also. Thanks for your reply. > Kurt Matthys Unisys Corp kurt@rsvl.unisys.com