Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:25447 comp.dcom.modems:3483 comp.mail.uucp:2802
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr)
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: <13275@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 1 Mar 89 18:26:48 GMT
References: <7298@june.cs.washington.edu> <[1861.5]karl@ddsw1.comp.ibmpc;1> <5138@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <60827@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 18

In article <60827@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:

| Several people have done this in their own UUCP's. Just don't call your new
| protocol 'g', or you'll break all the existing implementations. The better
| solution for modems like the HST is a streaming protocol, like 'f' but more
| robust and less overhead. I keep toying with this idea, as does Rick Adams,
| but we never get around to an implementation.

  One existing protocol which does very well at this is zmodem. Rather
than invent a new protocol, perhaps this could be added. It was designed
to run of long delay networks, and the back traffic is minimal.

  Maybe someone could suggest that UNIX international push on AT&T a
little and see if a new *standard* protocol could be added to HDB.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me