Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-lcc!unisoft!hoptoad!cfcl!dwh From: dwh@cfcl.UUCP (Dave Hamaker) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc Subject: Re: About Protocols for File Transfer Message-ID: <305@cfcl.UUCP> Date: 5 Jun 88 07:14:25 GMT References: <303@cfcl.UUCP> <698@lakesys.UUCP> <692@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> <9295@eddie.MIT.EDU> <8WbMLYy00Vs8EzltB4@andrew.cmu.edu> <304@cfcl.UUCP> <686@omen.UUCP> Reply-To: dwh@cfcl.UUCP (Dave Hamaker) Organization: Canta Forda Computer Laboratory, Pacifica, CA Lines: 18 In article <686@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) applies his experiences with ZMODEM and its predecessors as a basis for criticizing a protocol which we both agree is not suitable for practical use. Note that the entire article is a series of criticisms, with the exception of a possible tacit approval of my first reason for bringing the subject up. It doesn't sound like he wants any response from me, but I think the average reader would come away with the impression that my "real" protocol does not provide for modems which are not true full-duplex, does nothing about "network protection," has no "provisions for multiple streams," and ignores "adaptive error control procedures." All of these are, in fact, dealt with in my "real" protocol (there is even a way the receiver can get FILES ahead, but that's not obvious). I don't want to get involved in an argumentative tit-for-tat exchange with Chuck, so I'll leave things at that. -Dave Hamaker ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!hoptoad!cfcl!dwh