Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!wls From: wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: flow control Message-ID: <515@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 21:45:36 EST Article-I.D.: astrovax.515 Posted: Wed Dec 12 21:45:36 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 03:56:19 EST References: <6448@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <512@astrovax.UUCP> <4759@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 23 > > Personally I think RTS and CTS flow control is less disgusting than XON and > > XOFF (I think XON, XOFF is disgusting). I think that flow control should have > > been done out-of-band whenever possible. > > XON and XOFF *are* out-of-band. They are control characters, reserved for > such signalling purposes, not data characters. Re-read the ASCII standards > if you don't believe me. I am quite aware of that. I realized after I had posted that followup that it would provoke a response from some pedant. The article to which I was replying did not mention ASCII. What I was objecting to was the statement that use of RTS and CTS for flow control is disgusting. I don't have the standards before me but I seem to remember that was their intended use. Whether it is or is not the intended use of these lines. I still prefer methods of flow control be used whenever possible on 8 bit lines which allow the use of the full 8 bit path. The other nice thing about use of such lines is that flow control could have been done entirely by hardware made transparent to software. This is what how I think the standards really should have evolved. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls