Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  ISO8473 vs. IP
Message-ID: <8709091349.aa17070@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 13:49:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: Huey.8709091349.aa17070
Posted: Wed Sep  9 13:49:42 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Sep-87 05:08:41 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16

Marty,

My remarks should be interpreted with respect to the DARPA context, where
I have some idea of what TCP and other bangers might do with it (infer
source quench). Yes, is is true that the receiver, not the transmitter,
sees the bit; however, our experience has been that the resources being
starved are usually the buffer pool, which means the bit would probably be
set on either direction at substantially the same frequency. It works
either way, since either or both the transmitter or receiver can crank
back the window size.

I do not want to speculate on the latency of an ISO internet, except to
suggest that it will probably be similar to the DARPA internet, whatever
that evolves to.

Dave