sob@lib.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (03/18/90)
I will put it on the list of proposed enhancements. Sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't think it will require modificiations to the protocol, per se. (e.g. NPOST), just some reexamination of the ack messages to POST. STAN
nagel@ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (03/19/90)
sob@lib.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: >I will put it on the list of proposed enhancements. >Sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't think it will require >modificiations to the protocol, per se. (e.g. NPOST), just some >reexamination of the ack messages to POST. You're right -- I didn't examine the current protocol closely enough. Brian Kantor explained to me how you can use '100' response messages between the POST ant the POST response to get the desired behavior. -- Mark Nagel UC Irvine Depertment of ICS +----------------------------------------+ ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu | If you improve something long enough | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | eventually you will throw it away. |