Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  SLIP working group?
Message-ID: <675@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 88 15:43:38 GMT
References: <8803302037.AA02493@PHOEBE.CAM.UNISYS.COM>
Reply-To: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu.UUCP (Russ Nelson)
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 16

In article <8803302037.AA02493@PHOEBE.CAM.UNISYS.COM> jonab@CAM.UNISYS.COM (Jonathan P. Biggar) writes:
>Why don't we make the new versions of SLIP upwards compatible?  ...
>Add a negotiation feature to SLIP ...
>Everything can just default to the current SLIP usage.

That's a good idea.  Being that today's April 1, I'll just point out that
the negotiation packet(s) could have a checksum, CRC, or go bare.

By the way, I wasn't looking to start a public discussion.  I thought,
since all discussion of SLIP had vanished from tcp-ip, that people were
working on it in the background.  Obviously this is not the case.  As for
me, I'm convinced that a CRC is both necessary and sufficient and Efficient.

-- 
-russ
AT&T: (315)268-6591  BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX  Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu
GEnie: BH01  Compu$erve: 70441,205