"Julian Mu�oz Dom�nguez" wrote:
> The fact that the same can be done with the "same current elements" doesn't
> mean that new implementations are bad. In hdlc SREJ is for doing selective
> reject. You can do something similar without them, and ??
We don't need any complex negotiation at the link setup.
We can even do it dynamically depending on the memory available
in the stack for example. The only drawback of our scheme
is that it can't transmit a "list" of outstanding frames,
only one at a time. But TAPR's scheme can't do that either.
It's much more complex than our scheme and has as far as
I understood no benefit.
> At less AX25 v.2.2 is public, not like Flexnet. Saying that AX25 v.2.2 is
I agree that the Flexnet _internode_protocol_ is a lot less well
documented than it could be (however there's a relatively old
interradio proceeding which documents the protocol elements,
and there are alternative implementations as well).
> actitude should be constructive, and promove that someone implement that
> protocol.
So do it, if you think it's worth doing, then we can
judge the real world behaviour...
> There is no need to implement all. In a protocol, not all is needed, but things
> must be defined. I looked the timers they are a big improvement, relating them
No why? Most compression specs just define the _decoder_. So why
shouldn't
we just specify what is to be seen on the air and leave the "how" to
achieve this to the implementors? (you could add an appendix with
suggestions
though.)
> 1Mega is very much today ? I don't think so.
Yes it is. The majority of TNC's sold by all the commercial companies
and TAPR has still in the range of 32k
> And who is going to use inteligent tncs today, Linux can do all the work.
Not everyone uses Linux. Another thing is installed base. You just won't
manage to obsolete all the installed base at one day just for
the sake of a new protocol.
> Who is speaking of performance ? We have very fast computers, with a lot of
> memory. That's the way the telecomunicacions are moving today, the protocols
That's fine if you are happy with 1200 bauds. I'm not. And no, telecomm
protocols aren't moving towards unnecessary complexity, on the contrary.
> are designed in sdl because the definitions, the working are clear. I think
The experience I had in the latest project was a bit different.
> So I think they decided to do it that way. Maybe because they wanted to be
> independent of the ax25 implementors restrictions, and do the better.
But that is complete nonsense! If you want to establish a new protocol,
you can't just live in an ivory tower and ignore all installed
equipment!
> Yes, but maybe they didn't want to do a standard followed by all major
> implementors, but do the best. So that's maybe why there isn't any
Ok, fine, I won't follow it :-)
Tom
