From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id b266eb14 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 18:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 885329B8C1; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:22:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A379B8B6; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:22:30 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Yq81ywVL"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D822F9B8A6; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:22:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (mail-lf1-f43.google.com [209.85.167.43]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC0779B8A5; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:22:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id e27so608018lfj.8; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Kk3n91yP4MyisFOUdqMXZgqvrzQmkIXxoIo63mQDeok=; b=Yq81ywVLpXA3hb+bBwkrjuVKt9Hx3VWfO2aAyvzpg47HXwscQZq4rVkG4gfdqnbxY1 6IeHQeNz/yy2Cp+1viJxFHoFtWUcc6t27hW58SLAJqTPEeKhuMXB4xAJ1E12rH9kSvkz KTbFgq3KLIDCtRlOcUnWOt/TqJ/OX8Tv4hjFG1W/2zNay2xOdISEEyCjRDPmzUDRdycP gAMSfSiLFK7gc82PQVGmSxvX/5aUWn+dBWWa8cRA0tsmdS/SvnCviFFHRb34oEgQJFFd abAabL4ABgaBTPM34vqfYfvoPb2Nd0j2j6cpW9dWf7GzLmv9KyAgspIQFqqrWoG4LxGw Zjsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kk3n91yP4MyisFOUdqMXZgqvrzQmkIXxoIo63mQDeok=; b=fcUYJjnsJwrRr74yEOZdm3nyshoASrsWwGC/xy5PjXQE8FH5FxIwt1L8aJOylolXX8 hn+8jippGiYgIPWTJfelFdi2bSOxJzUMCRxABqWhya81z1KH674CH9kBedqHn5xVRlqb YixcmunNwc2EC/5EP0BkzDoXi+Imt9ylik7dajcC02I6oBi/JabsiSH76k5wMoVSYTLs nbxsai5gLq94OjOYc3tkN3+rnBg1jarP8AfOWYQlwL8BNkSsrFC5lR8Qs7V29oX8dt7s nEG0kGxM5OyUpZfm9UlhJUFsQcVnsge24EkQI+DJ9WJj05H1YGtulKkSHyKuNG7B1O8W 9udQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubOq+BQEBRXkTyD2Ol6GE0ZmQUYCZshskATefJ1m+vdqaDu+9W8 MvCI0DOs8j44oXHWv2VxxwX08tZM0Tqu2mEtHkxfiLwB X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaqwH586HRsffJv7QYGZbF/lpxfZdBqhvjUhlkzrVGZrs6hOolwqjQ2sDhVak/LlUxAj15KymcvmBHEl9VY+zM= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c116:: with SMTP id r22mr2744158lff.32.1549563735826; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:22:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:634f:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:22:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0572e855-9aac-337f-4f1b-66dda3839e14@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20190206174913.E518318C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <0572e855-9aac-337f-4f1b-66dda3839e14@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> From: Andy Kosela Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:22:14 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rjWP-2axA8Tn79IuQM10BotTsLI Message-ID: To: Grant Taylor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000007f001058151ec66" Subject: Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS , COFF Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000007f001058151ec66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thursday, February 7, 2019, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote: > Seeing as how this is diverging from TUHS, I'd encourage replies to the > COFF copy that I'm CCing. > > On 02/06/2019 01:47 PM, Kevin Bowling wrote: > >> There were protocols that fit better in the era like DeltaT with a >> simpler state machine and connection handling. Then there was a mad das= h >> of protocol development in the mid to late =E2=80=9880s that were measur= ed by >> various metrics to outperform TCP in practical and theoretical space. S= ome >> of these seemed quite nice like XTP and are still in use in niche defens= e >> applications. >> > > $ReadingList++ XTP was/is indeed very interesting. It was adopted by US Navy for SAFENET and created by Greg Chesson who was active in the early UNIX community. Not sure if we have him here on this list though. --Andy --00000000000007f001058151ec66 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, February 7, 2019, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
Seeing as how this is diverging from TUHS, I'd= encourage replies to the COFF copy that I'm CCing.

On 02/06/2019 01:47 PM, Kevin Bowling wrote:
There were protocols that fit better in the era like DeltaT with a simpler = state machine and connection handling.=C2=A0 Then there was a mad dash of p= rotocol development in the mid to late =E2=80=9880s that were measured by v= arious metrics to outperform TCP in practical and theoretical space.=C2=A0 = Some of these seemed quite nice like XTP and are still in use in niche defe= nse applications.

$ReadingList++

XTP was/is indeed very interesting.=C2=A0 = It was adopted by US Navy for SAFENET and created by Greg Chesson who was a= ctive in the early UNIX community.=C2=A0 Not sure if we have him here on th= is list though.

--Andy=C2=A0
--00000000000007f001058151ec66--