2. cnp3-ebook
3. principles/reliability
4. Czech
5. Browse

9 / 9

/ 9

Untranslated strings

• Untranslated strings • state:empty
• Unfinished strings • state:<translated
• Translated strings • state:>=translated
• Strings marked for edit • state:needs-editing
• Strings with suggestions • has:suggestion
• Strings with variants • has:variant
• Strings with labels • has:label
• Strings with context • has:context
• Unfinished strings without suggestions • state:<translated AND NOT has:suggestion
• Strings with comments • has:comment
• Strings with any failing checks • has:check
• Approved strings • state:approved
• Strings waiting for review • state:translated

Position and priority

• Position and priority
• Position
• Priority
• Labels
• Source string
• Target string
• String age
• Number of words
• Number of comments
• Number of failing checks
• Key

	English	Czech
	In the figure above, when the sender receives `C(OK,0,[2])`, it knows that all frames up to and including `D(0,...)` have been correctly received. It also knows that frame `D(2,...)` has been received and can cancel the retransmission timer associated to this frame. However, this frame should not be removed from the sending buffer before the reception of a cumulative acknowledgment (`C(OK,2)` in the figure above) that covers this frame.
	Maximum window size with `go-back-n` and `selective repeat`
	A reliable protocol that uses `n` bits to encode its sequence number can send up to :math:`2^n` successive frames. However, to ensure a reliable delivery of the frames, `go-back-n` and `selective repeat` cannot use a sending window of :math:`2^n` frames. Consider first `go-back-n` and assume that a sender sends :math:`2^n` frames. These frames are received in-sequence by the destination, but all the returned acknowledgments are lost. The sender will retransmit all frames. These frames will all be accepted by the receiver and delivered a second time to the user. It is easy to see that this problem can be avoided if the maximum size of the sending window is :math:`{2^n}-1` frames. A similar problem occurs with `selective repeat`. However, as the receiver accepts out-of-sequence frames, a sending window of :math:`{2^n}-1` frames is not sufficient to ensure a reliable delivery. It can be easily shown that to avoid this problem, a `selective repeat` sender cannot use a window that is larger than :math:`\frac{2^n}{2}` frames.
	Reliable protocols often need to send data in both directions. To reduce the overhead caused by the acknowledgments, most reliable protocols use `piggybacking`. Thanks to this technique, a datalink entity can place the acknowledgments and the receive window that it advertises for the opposite direction of the data flow inside the header of the data frames that it sends. The main advantage of piggybacking is that it reduces the overhead as it is not necessary to send a complete frame to carry an acknowledgment. This is illustrated in the figure below where the acknowledgment number is underlined in the data frames. Piggybacking is only used when data flows in both directions. A receiver will generate a pure acknowledgment when it does not send data in the opposite direction as shown in the bottom of the figure.
	Piggybacking example
	SDU is the acronym of Service Data Unit. We use it as a generic term to represent the data that is transported by a protocol.
	The size of the sliding window can be either fixed for a given protocol or negotiated during the connection establishment phase. Some protocols allow to change the maximum window size during the data transfer. We will explain these techniques with real protocols later.