Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mtune!jhc
From: jhc@mtune.ATT.COM (Jonathan Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Fast (12KBaud) UUCP 'g' transfer rates over Voice-Grade Lines
Message-ID: <1146@mtune.ATT.COM>
Date: Sun, 16-Aug-87 23:17:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtune.1146
Posted: Sun Aug 16 23:17:32 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Aug-87 04:50:14 EDT
References: <192@caeco.UUCP> <2849@phri.UUCP>
Reply-To: jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 20
Keywords: Telebit, TrailBlazer, Modems, UUCP, 'g' Protocol, Mimicry
Xref: mnetor comp.dcom.modems:807 news.sysadmin:329

In article <2849@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>	Arghhhhh!  Maybe the reason Sun's RS-232 ports don't do RTS/CTS
>handshaking is because if they did, it wouldn't be RS-232.  As defined in the
>standard, RS-232 has no flow-control.  Granted, hardware flow contol is nice,

Not quite true. Full-duplex RS-232 as defined in the standard has no
flow control, true. If you read the standard then it's very obvious
that RTS and CTS are only usefully defined when the interface is in
half-duplex. Strictly, use of these leads as flow control signals does
violate the letter of the RS-232 standard, but EIA flow control is so
useful that I (at least) think that this should be in the standard.
And the best way to get it there is to put it in products. As long as
it's an option no-one should get upset over it.

Anyone out there on the RS-232D committee?
-- 
Jonathan Clark
[NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc

An Englishman never enjoys himself except for some noble purpose.