NETWORK WORKBENCH GRADING PROCEDURES FOR MARK PULLEN'S CLASSES

Requirements for acceptance: All projects are to be submitted using the
with the module name as established in NW (e.g. "BitStuffing.java"). Check
the code file to be sure it is original and well commented. Cut up to
40% (generally this will be 1 or 2 points) for insufficient comments.
The essence of these projects is for the student to understand and
clearly convey how to make the protocols work.

Lateness: If the date/time the email was sent is later than the due
date/time for the assignment, cut ten percent of the full possible grade
(in most cases this will be .5 points) per week.

Specific results expected for each assignment are listed below. If the
expected results are obtained give full credit (less any cuts above).
Here are the standards for partial credit:

No code other than the stub submitted:                  no credit

Program runs but output does not show expected results:       60%

Program runs and output is partially correct, or is correct
but code has a clear deficiency that was not tested:          80%

Where the assignment includes questions, the questions count

The grader may comment on particular errors, but that is not required;
the grade is based on the code and output files submitted, so the grader
is required only to describe how the program falls in one of the above
categories. Unusual cases that do not fit the grading standard are to
be forwarded to the professor for evaluation.
Expected results for the various projects are:

DLC1 - bits show as stuffed in the binary frame, in the correct
position

DLC2 - the CRC FCS in the last 16 bits of the frame (before the
ending flag) is correct with required test inputDLC3 - the reliable DLC transfers exactly one copy of each sent "email” between host 1.1 (which is router1) and host 2.1 (which is router2), despite errors in data transmission LAN1 - the Data Frames Sent & Received and Collisions Detected at the
end of the NW output match the NW solution; also the backoff
process messages in the output show the same pattern as the
NW solution; ends with the same timing as the JNW solution

TRN1 - the 'email' file transfers; the student answers the questions
correctly

WAN2 - the packet forwarding matrix output is correct; the 'email' is
routed to destinations properly