# Re: Seattle minutes

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Thu, 07 Apr 1994 12:20:13 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bob Kummerfeld: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Message-Id: <9404071720.AA21127@ulua.hal.com>

    To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Apr 1994 10:11:00 CDT."

                 <9404071511.AA13038@expresso.bunyip.com>

    Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 12:20:13 -0500

    From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

In message <9404071511.AA13038@expresso.bunyip.com>, Peter Deutsch writes:
>
>
>> I agree that a single protocol should suffice, though I would
>> prefer something with less packet overhead than whois++.
>> (i.e. UDP rather than TCP)
>
>It would probably be nice to have only a single protocol,
>although I don't see it as an absolute necessity at this
>point. Certainly a UDP-based solution would be a win,

Check out prospero:

ftp://prospero.isi.edu/pub/prospero/

in particular:

ftp://prospero.isi.edu/pub/prospero/../papers/prospero/prospero-bii.ps.Z

Dan

- Next message: Bob Kummerfeld: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seattle minutes"