Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!rcbal!oz!kc
From: kc@oz.rci.dk (Knud Christensen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: X.224 (Transport) state table question
Keywords: TP0
Message-ID: <1110@oz.rci.dk>
Date: 10 Aug 90 09:26:36 GMT
References: <1990Aug6.111420.13755@idt.unit.no> <1990Aug6.235903.23530@mel.dit.csiro.au> <1990Aug7.073250.24459@idt.unit.no>
Organization: RC International, Copenhagen, Denmark
Lines: 34

harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no writes:

>In article <1990Aug6.235903.23530@mel.dit.csiro.au>, 
>ajw@mel.dit.csiro.au (Andrew Waugh) writes:

>> Class 0 Transport only uses the implicit variant of normal release
>> (see 6.7.1).

>Sorry, but no. This bit me too, once.
>DRs ARE used in class zero, but ONLY to refuse incoming CRs.
>This is done so you can pass the disconnect code, I think.
>The procedure in ISO 8073-1986 (I think this has the same numbering as
>X.224) is
>in chapter 6.6 (connection refusal), not 6.7 (normal release).

>So my question, rephrased, is:
>After completing the refusal procedure in 6.6.3, when, if ever, should
>the responder
>disconnect the network connection?

>                      Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>                      ISO hacker

If you look at procedure 6.1 "Assignment to network connection" you will
find that only the owner "initiator" of a network connection should
release it. So when you have sent the DR-TPDU, the transport connection
from your point of view is closed. The NDISind arrives it affects a network
connection which is no longer used, so no action should be taken.


Knud Christensen                                     RC International, Denmark
kc@rci.dk

Inside every large program is a small program struggling to get out. - Hoare -