Re: TI-H: fargo fterm
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
At 06:11 PM 11/15/96 -0500, Isaac Salpeter wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Marty Williams wrote:
>
>> It's synchronous though because, the sender places a bit out there to be
>> read by the receiver and has to waits for it to be acked before it can send
>> the next bit. The protocol is synchronous because, the sender is held in
>> time to the receivers ability to read the bits.
>
>Fair enough. A bit of a stretch, but I'll go with that. Anyhow that's not
>what's important. :)
>
Yes, we were saying the same thing. I wasn't trying to argue, but I'm
getting tire of all the mail folks are posting about the link protocol, as
if they know what they're talking about. I don't claim to fully understand
everything about the protocol. I do claim to have a handle on it though.
The information posted on the link protocol is not very intuative or
striaght forword. It takes a lot reading between docs and then some trial
and error before it becomes clear.
And yes, it's not important whether or not it's async or sync. You can make
a good case both ways. However, I would rather discuss protocols than some
of the other things I've read...
References: