Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!proteon.com!jas
From: jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: TELNET versus LAT
Message-ID: <9101161700.AA19338@sonny.proteon.com>
Date: 16 Jan 91 17:00:30 GMT
References: <9101151656.AA04342@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23

But could a protocol be designed that had the advantages of LAT
(multiple streams in one packet, rate limiting, etc.) that ran over a
network protocol (such as DECnet routing without NSP), or had adaptive
timeouts?  I strongly suspect that the answer would be yes.  Such a
protocol would eliminate the crazy jumping through hoops people are
going through to try and bridge LAT across multiple media and wide
area networks.

I suspect at least part of the design parameters of LAT has more to do
with the implementation characteristcs of DECnet under VAX/VMS than
with the design of the "ultimately efficient" virtual terminal
protocol.

Indeed, despite implementation problems, in some ways CTERM (the
DECnet virtual terminal protocol) is a better protocol, since it can
dynamically switch between local and remote echo, even in a screen
editor.  Of course, the application has to be well written to gain the
advantages of the CTERM protocol.

Unfortunately, with LAT proprietary, the standards bodies won't get to
learn from it in designing future protocols.  It would be nice if the
ISO virtual terminal protocols could have had some of these
advantages.