Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!rick
From: rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 'g' & packet sizes & extensions
Summary: historical drivel
Message-ID: <44410@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 7 Sep 88 03:51:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: beno.44410
References: <7272@bigtex.uucp> <10500003@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> <6452@chinet.UUCP> <10581@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 23

> eio.  (Incidentally, eio was originally written for UNET, 3Com's
> TCP/IP, and antedates 4.2bsd.) Tio was developed later, and
> independently; there doesn't seem to be much need for both it and eio.

I "invented" tio. It was first done for UNET, 3Com's TCP/IP, then
ported to 4.1C BSD, then 4.2BSD. I've often wondered which was done first.
They were certainly done independently (great minds....). I'd guess
somewhere in March-June, 1983 for tio.

Both protocols do the same thing. They first sent the number
of bytes in the file, then blast the file out the line.

They differ in how they encode the number of bytes. At the time, I was
mucking with the networking internals, so I chose to use the
"network byte order" [i.e. htonl()], while eio uses an
ascii string terminated by either a null byte or a new line (I forget
which).

I'm sure that if they knew I had hacked up tio they wouldn't have
invented eio. Similarly, had I know about eio, I wouldn't have
bothered with tio.

---rick