RFC 132 UNKNOWN CORRECTIONS · HISTORY · FLOW CONTROL

Typographical Error in RFC 107

Corrects a range at the end of RFC 107's flow-control section.

RFC EDITOR

White, J.E., "Typographical Error in RFC 107", RFC 132, DOI 10.17487/RFC0132, April 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc132>.

BIBTEX

@misc{rfc132,
  series = {Request for Comments},
  number = 132,
  howpublished = {RFC 132},
  publisher = {RFC Editor},
  doi = {10.17487/RFC0132},
  url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc132},
  author = {J.E. White},
  title = {{Typographical Error in RFC 107}},
  pagetotal = 1,
  year = 1971,
  month = apr,
}

PUBLISHED: April 1971
AUTHORS: J.E. White
STREAM: Legacy
BUILDS ON: RFC 107 — Output of the Host-Host Protocol Glitch Cleaning Committee
OBSOLETED BY: RFC 154 — Exposition Style
DOI: 10.17487/RFC0132

LINEAGE · FROM THE RFC INDEXOpen full graph →

'71RFC 107Output of the Host-Host Protocol Glitch Cleaning Committee '71RFC 132Typographical Error in RFC 107 '71RFC 154Exposition Style

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗

NETWORK WORKING GROUP                                           Jim White
Request for Comments #132                                       UCSB
NIC #6708                                                       April 28, 1971






                     TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN RFC 107
                     ______________________________


On page 5 of RFC 107, at the end of the section titled 'V.
Flow Control', the partial sentence:

     Each of these numbers is interpreted as "the number
     of 128ths of the current allocation" to be returned
     if it is in the range zero to 128...

should read:

     ...if it is the range of zero to 127,...
                                      ---

That is, return al the appropriate allocation if and
only if the high-order of the left-most bit of the corresponding
fraction is 1.


       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
     [ into the online RFC archives by Mohnish Harisinganey 5/97 ]

ISO Plain Language

On this page

PROBLEMRFC 107's flow-control text gives an upper end of 128 for a range that should end at 127.

MECHANISMRFC 132 says the sentence should specify a range from zero to 127 and clarifies that the allocation is returned only when the high-order bit of the fraction is 1.

REPLACED BY RFC 154This correction to RFC 107 was itself obsoleted by RFC 154.

§1The Typographical Correction

RFC 132 points to a sentence on page 5 of RFC 107, in the section titled “V. Flow Control.” The sentence says that a number is in range zero to 128. RFC 132 says the range should instead be zero to 127.

RFC 107 gives the wrong upper bound for a range. This one-page note corrects it from 128 to 127.

§2When the Allocation Is Returned

The correction states that the appropriate allocation is returned only if the high-order, or leftmost, bit of the corresponding fraction is 1. This clarifies the condition attached to the corrected range in the original flow-control text.

The note also states the condition for returning the allocation: the fraction's leftmost bit must be 1.

§3Status of the Correction

RFC 132 is a short correction to RFC 107. The unit metadata records RFC 154 as the document that later obsoleted RFC 132.

This memo fixed a line in RFC 107. RFC 154 later replaced RFC 132.