RFC 512 (rfc512) - Page 2 of 2

More on lost message detection

Alternative Format: Original Text Document

< Previous

RFC 512              MORE ON LOST MESSAGE DETECTION             May 1973


storage (expensive) or that RFNM's be handled by a swapped process (also
expensive).  The third proposal (that of a host-to-host acknowledgment
scheme) is perhaps the best, but as that requires quite major changes to
the level 2 protocol, an interim solution such as that proposed here
seems of value.










       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
       [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with    ]
       [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp.             9/99 ]

































Hathaway

< Previous