Proposal for modifying linking
A proposed change to how TENEX users join linked conversations.
Victor, K., "Proposal for modifying linking", RFC 576, DOI 10.17487/RFC0576, September 1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc576>.
@misc{rfc576,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 576,
howpublished = {RFC 576},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0576},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc576},
author = {K. Victor},
title = {{Proposal for modifying linking}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1973,
month = sep,
} RFC text
Network Working Group K. Victor
Request for Comments: 576 September 1973
Proposal for Modifying Linking
We plan to modify the link jsys in TENEX to work in a little bit
better way in terms of the user interface. Conversations with BBN
indicate that they have no complaints with the current
implementation. However, if after we have gained experience with our
new implementation, we will let them know about it and they will
review the new implementation and possibly accept it as part of
standard TENEX.
I would appreciate feedback in the next couple of days so that I can
go ahead and implement this proposal (or a modified proposal or
nothing...). (I estimate that it will only take a couple of hours to
implement!)
(Note that by modifying the jsys, the proposed changes as specified
will be in effect at the user level in the exec.)
The default state for all users will remain as it currently is, i.e.
RECEIVE LINKS.
Now, consider users A, B, and C.
If A and B link to each other they are now holding a conversation.
After establishing a conversation, all members of the conversation
will be placed in the REFUSE LINKS state.
If user C (or any other user) now tries to link to user A (or B), the
bell will ring on users A (or B) and C terminals indicating that A
(or B) is in a REFUSE LINKS state.
If A ignores the bell then C is not admitted to the conversation
and A and B can continue their conversation as if C had never
tried to enter the conversation.
However, if A does a RECEIVE LINKS while the bell is ringing (the
bell rings for approximately 15 seconds), then C will be linked
into the conversation and not to just user A. Thus A and B will
be linked, A and C will be linked, and B and C will be linked,
i.e., a three way conversation. Also, users A, B, and C will be
in the REFUSE LINKS state.
Whenever a user leaves a conversation, his state will be set
automatically to RECEIVE LINKS.
Thus, when user C does a break links the resulting states will be:
A and B will be linked and both will be in REFUSE LINKS
C will be out of the conversation and will be in RECEIVE LINKS
Now, when A or B does a BREAK LINKS there will no longer be a
conversation and both A and B will be in the RECEIVE LINKS state.
To summarize:
After any conversation is established, all members of the
conversation are placed in the REFUSED LINKS state.
When a user links to a terminal or a user, he is in fact linking
into a conversation if one exists or to an individual if no
conversation is taking place.
When a user leaves a conversation, she is placed in the RECEIVE
LINKS state.
Changes to the TLINK jsys will be necessary to implement the above.
No changes are required in the EXEC. In addition to the above
changes, we will add a new jsys that will return the link and advise
status for a passed terminal, i.e., you will be able to tell which
lines are linked to the passed terminal, which lines the passed
terminal is linked to, which line the passed terminal is advising,
and/or which line is advising the passed terminal. This information
will probably be incorporated into the systat printout, the where is
printout, and will probably be used within NLS for shared screen
work.
[This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
[into the online RFC archives by Bob German 7/99]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The Proposed Linking Behavior
The proposal leaves the default user state as RECEIVE LINKS. When two users link to each other, they form a conversation and all its members enter REFUSE LINKS. A later user who tries to link causes a bell to ring on the relevant terminals.
If the alerted user does not act, the requester is not admitted and the existing conversation continues. If a participant uses RECEIVE LINKS while the bell is ringing, the requester joins the conversation rather than linking only to that participant.
Two users can link and then refuse new links by default. If another user asks to join, a participant can accept the request while the bell rings.
§2Leaving a Conversation
When a user leaves a conversation, the proposal automatically places that user in RECEIVE LINKS state. If one member leaves a three-person conversation, the remaining members stay linked and remain in REFUSE LINKS. When a participant breaks the link in a two-person conversation, the other participant is also left without a conversation and returns to RECEIVE LINKS.
A person who leaves a conversation becomes ready to receive links again. The remaining participants keep their conversation and continue refusing new links.
§3System Changes and Status Information
The proposal says changes to the TLINK JSYS are needed, but no EXEC changes are required. It also proposes a new JSYS that reports link and advise relationships for a terminal. The author says this information might be included in status displays and might be used by NLS for shared-screen work.
The author requests feedback over the next couple of days before deciding whether to implement this proposal, a modified one or nothing.
The change would update TLINK and add a way for programs to inspect link relationships. At the time of the note, the author was still asking for feedback before deciding what to implement.