Richard Town wrote the following to David Bowerman, and I quote (in part):
 -=> Quoting David Bowerman to Richard Town <=-
    RT-> This is extended V42 which USR has never even recognised as
    RT-> existing, let alone negotiated with.  But, since you feel the need
    RT-> to change the subject...
  DB> Out of curiosity, where do we find "extended V42" documented?
 RT> You might like to try Miracom
Miracom is a wholly owned subsidiary of USR (now 3COM), did you per chance 
mean Microcom?
  DB> give me at least the name of the ITU-T recommendation?
 RT> What ITU(t) recommendation?
The one which supports V.42bis over MNP4?
BTW, you might find the following interesting reading:
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Differences between modems...
Date: 30 Nov 92 16:40:36 EDT
In article , geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey
Welsh) writes:
>> No, not quite. V.42bis _depends_ upon V.42. It is an data-compression
>> standard where V.42 is a error-control standard.
>
> Umm, I'd question the use of the word "depends" in there.  For instance,
> USRobotics has implemented V.42bis compression with their HST error
> correction...
Geoff is right.  The way I phrase it is: V.42 bis is currently
standardized only for use over V.42 LAPM.  It is not standardized
for use over other error control protocols, but it can nevertheless
be used with any error control protocol which has the capability of
negotiating V.42bis' parameters.  We're looking into using it over
X.25 and V.120, and it might also be used over LAN protocols and in
other applications.
--
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
  DB> Or is that a Rockwell proprietary extension?
 RT> Nope
True, Microcom openly published the mechanism by which it can be accompished.
  DB> Can you spell hypocrisy?
 RT> C a b a l
More like, Richard Town.
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------