Subject: Degeneration to definite response...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 16:20:12 EDT

Paul,
I want to understand your proposed rule better.  I will try to make
it more concrete - please tell me if I got it right:
  After receiving a PREQ, the pacing receiver applies this test:
      if ((# messages received in the previous window, including the
          previous but not the current PREQ) <= (1/2 the current NWS))
      then
        send the PRSP after I have received ((1/2 the NWS)-1) more
            messages
      else
        send the PRSP as soon as I have sufficient resources for the
            window I am granting

Playing with this, in some cases it seemed to alternate between sending
a PRSP right away then waiting 1/2 a window.  I not thinking about this
very clearly - could you show an example?
Thanks,
Peter

>
>Shannon, Bill et al.
>
>>    Since on circuits with sporadic traffic this degenerates to "definite
>>    response mode", do we want to specify some receiver options to smooth
>>    this effect or do we wish to leave it to the discretion of the
>>    implementor?  What does everyone think?
>
>In the interests of consistent performance for standard implementations (at
>least, it should be consistently good!), I think we should specify that the
>receiver delay the PRSP until, say, half way through the window if the sender
>used less than half the window on the current cycle.  If more than half the
>window is being used, the PRSP should be sent as soon as the receiver has
>determined that it has sufficient resources to handle the next window (which
>still leaves a fair degree of implementation-specific flexibility)
>
>If a receiver wishes to change the window size either way, it may send the
>IPM/PRSP whenever it wishes (i.e. no need to wait for the half-window point).
>
>Paul Brittain
>Data Connection
>

---

From: Bill Kwan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 94 10:39:01 EST

Peter,
     
     I don't see the alternating scenario you are indicating. Did you 
     reset the receiver's receive pacing count to NWS when you send the
     PRSP? I can't say I gave this much thought, because I am hoping this 
     may all be a non-issue when Shannon post his new proposal which will 
     go back to an accumulative scheme.
     
     Regards,
     Bill

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Degeneration to definite response...
Author:  [email-masked] at inet
Date:    5/27/94 4:20 PM

Paul,