Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:5411 comp.dcom.modems:7222
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ism.isc.com!ism.isc.com!johnan
From: johnan@ism.isc.com (John Antypas)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: What should a new UUCP protocol do?
Message-ID: <1990Nov07.155516.17815@ism.isc.com>
Date: 7 Nov 90 15:55:16 GMT
Sender: usenet@ism.isc.com (Usenet News)
Reply-To: johnan@ism.isc.com (John Antypas)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 28

Interactive Systems is now the fortunate owner of many different modems.
Some are Telebits, some are V.32, some are 2400 baud no-namers, etc.
Unfortunately, we do UUCP with all of them.  We've been looking at the
transfer stats and have noticed the different flavors of modems each
treat UUCP a bit different.

We are looking into placing a new protocol into UUCP which copes with
the higher-speed modems, but doesn't require protocol spoofing, nor
does it assume your running X.25 (no f protocol).  What characteristics
should we shoot for when dealing with what we call, the new low-end
high speed modem.

This "modem" appears to have the followig basics:

NOT V.32, V.42/42.bis, PEP!  Totally unique protocols
Can do 9600 baud without compression, but with compression can do 38.4K
Either does not have a back channel, or must "turn the channel around" and 
   can take a second or so to do it.

I've been looking at a modified 'g' protocol using 2K blocks window size 7.
Am I completely off track?  Obviously, this works best with ASCII files
in bulk like Batch SMTP.

Tell us what you want, maybe we can put it in.

John Antypas / Interactive Systems Corp.
uucp: ...!uunet!ism!johnan    Internet: johnan@ism.isc.com
All statements above responsability of the author.