Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:25591 comp.dcom.modems:3497 comp.mail.uucp:2814
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.dcom.modems,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Major Modem Woe: THE 9600B modem no good for interactive use
Message-ID: <5151@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 3 Mar 89 15:02:18 GMT
References: <60827@pyramid.pyramid.com> <13275@steinmetz.ge.com> <61122@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 14

From a coding point of view, it seems alot easier to fix the problems 
with 'g' at larger packet sizes that to create a whole new protocol.  
I'd guess that with a days effort, someone could make these modems 
with small reverse channels work efficiently.  Uucp has some exchange 
that indicates what packet sizes an implementation can use - if it 
doesn't do it right, I agree, a new protocol letter should be used.  


Come on AT&T, fix 'g' larger packet sizes in Sys V.4.

-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
            ----- Use lint! -----