Re: SUPDUP protocol

David C. Plummer (DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM)
Tue, 6 Oct 87 15:32 EDT

    Date: Tue 6 Oct 87 10:22:40-EDT
    From: Michael Padlipsky <PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>

    Speaking of misunderstandings, please be aware that I'm NOT one of
    SUPDUP's advocates. Just trying to "call for the order of the day" by
    asking for an explanation (which I'd still appreciate getting) of how
    windowing sorts of things minimize number of transmissions. If, however,
    your point is that the need for progress outweighs the need to avoid
    being charged for each character typed, so that windowing protocols
    should become the focus of the discussion irrespective of their
    properties in the cost dimension, I'm inclined to duly note it and
    repeat my question to everybody else as to whether a genuinely
    simple fix to RCTE (whether the protocol or the implementations)
    wouldn't be worthwhile, in context.

One of my points is that the need for windowing and interactiveness is
great, and that having to worry about unrelated-to-that-work things like
number of packets and random monetary costs severely detracts from
progress in windowing and interaction.

Your question still stands, and I am not qualified to answer it. I hope
people keep windowing and RCTE separate. If you must think of them
together, try to think of RCTE being an optimization to windowing, not a
requirement (because of $$ constraints, etc).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:34 GMT