Re: draft-cameron-tmux-02.txt

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu> Mon, 07 February 1994 16:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13064; 7 Feb 94 11:12 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13060; 7 Feb 94 11:12 EST
Received: from basil.xylint.co.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19092; 7 Feb 94 11:12 EST
Received: from Mordor.Stanford.EDU by basil.xylint.co.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22966; Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:23:04 GMT
Received: from localhost by Mordor.Stanford.EDU (8.6.4/inc-1.0) id HAA28938; Mon, 7 Feb 1994 07:24:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199402071524.HAA28938@Mordor.Stanford.EDU>
To: "David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.com>
Cc: cmp-id@xylint.co.uk
Subject: Re: draft-cameron-tmux-02.txt
Phone: +1 408 246 8253; fax: +1 408 249 6205
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 02 Feb 94 12:27:21 -0600. <9402021827.AA00750@frenzy.cray.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 07:24:56 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu>
X-Mts: smtp

    ---- Included message:

    Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just define an RSP (response)
    message, that is never responded to?  Then if you get an ENQ,
    you can either start sending TMux packets, or send an RSP so

Dave, if a return ENQ serves the same purpose as an RSP, then why
define an additional form?  The TCP use of SYN in both directions
seems to strongest comparable form.  (Note the added benefit that
having these things pass each other in mid-flight makes the
end-nodes just think that they are receiving an "acknowledgement".
I've always been impressed with the beauty of the TCP SYN idea.

Dave