Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!CERF
From: CERF@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP vs TCP/IP
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU]24-Mar-87.10:07:04.CERF>
Date: Tue, 24-Mar-87 10:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: <[A.ISI.EDU]24-Mar-87.10:07:04.CERF>
Posted: Tue Mar 24 10:07:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Mar-87 07:18:55 EST
References: <8703241353.AA07652@mitre.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Steve (Silverman),

Thanks for the reply on X.25 resets. My experiences with
public or private data nets using X.25 is that under 
congestion conditions, X.25 does NOT recover from the
problems causing resets while TCP and other end/end transport
protocols often do recover. Consequently, most inter-computer
applications use some kind of end/end protocol with retransmission
(and, of course duplicate detection) above X.25. 

I took the earlier comments on X.25 to imply that raw X.25 is
sufficient. I would have to say that my experience has been
otherwise, except for terminal to host applications in which the user
recovers from problems by re-typing his input (which behavior is also
appropriate for noisy, unprotected dial-up access to PADs...).

Do we have a difference of opinion?

Vint