RFC 132

TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN RFC 107 🎀

okay so this is RFC 132 🦋 and it's from the Network Working Group, written by Jim White at UCSB. It's Request for Comments #132 with NIC #6708, dated April 28, 1971. The title block doesn't list a category, and it doesn't say what this obsoletes or updates. 💅

The whole point is a typo fix for RFC 107 🙈 Page 5 of RFC 107, right at the end of the section called 'V. Flow Control', has a sentence that just... cuts off. It goes like this:

     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...

bestie, that sentence is broken 😭 It's supposed to read:

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

So the range is zero to 127, not zero to 128. 🔥

Okay, and here's what it means in plain English 🧚 You return al [sic] the appropriate allocation if and only if the high-order of the left-most bit of the corresponding fraction is 1. ✨ So the thing to check is that one bit, and that's the whole flex. 👑

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

the end 🌈💖