> On Feb 24, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>
> On 2018-02-24 17:21, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Yes. But what difference does that make on the server side? The fact that
>>> the requested image is small enough to fit into one frame is just a detail
>>> that makes the client implementation easier.
>> The difference is that the server is required to answer a request for
>> secondary loaded with a single response packet holding the entire response.
>> For other loads, it can deliver the data in pieces, and the size of those
>> pieces it its choice. For the second loader, it does not have that choice.
>
> The MOP servers I know of don't even know about that distinction. They just
> serve the image. If it fits in one frame, it will come in one frame. If it
> don't, it won't. The server can't do more than that.
If so, then that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the protocol spec has an
explicit requirement for the secondary load request to be answered with a
complete load response (data with transfer address) in a single message.
paul
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
Simh@trailing-edge.com
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
