Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!laidbak!guardian
From: guardian@laidbak.UUCP (Harry Skelton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,news.sysadmin
Subject: Hardware Protocol
Message-ID: <1103@laidbak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Aug-87 08:41:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: laidbak.1103
Posted: Mon Aug 17 08:41:50 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Aug-87 04:26:38 EDT
References: <192@caeco.UUCP> <2849@phri.UUCP>
Reply-To: guardian@laidbak.UUCP
Organization: LAI Chicago
Lines: 22
Keywords: Telebit, TrailBlazer, Modems, UUCP, 'g' Protocol, Mimicry
Summary: So you thought XON/XOFF was a nice feature
Xref: mnetor comp.dcom.modems:810 news.sysadmin:332

In article <2849@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>In article <192@caeco.UUCP> murf@caeco.UUCP (Steve Murphy) writes:
>> The Sun 3/160 (and all the sun 2's and the 3/110's also) cannot hardware
>> handshake AT ALL. [...] Now, if I worked for Sun, I'd blush, because this is
>
>	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,
>and you might reasonably argue that the lack of such flow control is a major
>mis-feature of RS-232, but the thing to do is to define a new standard which


I don't suppose that anyone though how a PC/AT controls communications?  I 
think that the term here is simply 'protocol' since many other versions
'handshaking' occur on a RS-232.

I must agree, having something hardware control data flow does have problems 
and would provide a real bugger to find any problems with short of a breakout
box or scope.

Harry Skelton
guardian@laidbak.UUCP