Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!im4u!esc-bb!halley!bc From: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: standard interface Message-ID: <301@halley.UUCP> Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 11:29:09 EST Article-I.D.: halley.301 Posted: Fri Nov 13 11:29:09 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 10:09:32 EST References: <8711061732.AA04324@opal.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX Lines: 27 In article <8711061732.AA04324@opal.berkeley.edu> minshall@OPAL.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >Drew, > If what you are suggesting is a TSR which maps "standardized" >socket calls into "vendor X's TCP calls", then I think this is minimally >acceptable ("minimally" because of my feeling that for high performance one >needs something better than sockets). > >Greg It is unclear to me the performance disadvantage of a socket interface. I think sockets and TLI are fairly reasonable transport interfaces. Since sockets are not yet entrenched on PCs, I would prefer TLI for a de facto standard. The conversion from sockets to TLI is not great, and a couple of years from now, we may be glad we did. I propose a TLI TSR interface with both TLI and socket *libraries* that map to the TLI interface. Aren't Microsoft and 3Com working on reaching some kind of standard like this based on TLI? Whatever is done along TSR and LIM 4.0 lines, a dynalink interface for OS/2 should be conformant to the same standard. -bc -- Bill Crews Tandem Computers Austin, Texas ..!rutgers!im4u!esc-bb!halley!bc (512) 244-8350