Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!QUABBIN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM!DCP From: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (David C. Plummer) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: SUPDUP protocol Message-ID: <871006153210.8.DCP@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 15:32:00 EDT Article-I.D.: KOYAANIS.871006153210.8.DCP Posted: Tue Oct 6 15:32:00 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 21:48:43 EDT References: <12340323701.42.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 25 Date: Tue 6 Oct 87 10:22:40-EDT From: Michael Padlipsky Speaking of misunderstandings, please be aware that I'm NOT one of SUPDUP's advocates. Just trying to "call for the order of the day" by asking for an explanation (which I'd still appreciate getting) of how windowing sorts of things minimize number of transmissions. If, however, your point is that the need for progress outweighs the need to avoid being charged for each character typed, so that windowing protocols should become the focus of the discussion irrespective of their properties in the cost dimension, I'm inclined to duly note it and repeat my question to everybody else as to whether a genuinely simple fix to RCTE (whether the protocol or the implementations) wouldn't be worthwhile, in context. One of my points is that the need for windowing and interactiveness is great, and that having to worry about unrelated-to-that-work things like number of packets and random monetary costs severely detracts from progress in windowing and interaction. Your question still stands, and I am not qualified to answer it. I hope people keep windowing and RCTE separate. If you must think of them together, try to think of RCTE being an optimization to windowing, not a requirement (because of $$ constraints, etc).