Richard Town wrote in a message to David Bowerman:
 DB> Out of curiosity, where do we find "extended V42" documented?
 RT> You might like to try Miracom
Interesting.  Last time I looked at Miracom, I seem to remember that they 
were part of USR.  Now you are saying that Miracom originated an extension to 
the v.42 recommendation to allow signalling extended MNP capability?  A 
capability which doesn't seem to exist in any USR modems.  Of course, you 
could have meant Microcom.
 DB> give me at least the name of the ITU-T recommendation?
 RT> What ITU(t) recommendation?
The one that documents the extended v.42.  If it is not a documented 
recommendation, it's someone's proprietary extension.
 DB> Or is that a Rockwell proprietary extension?
 RT> Nope
Does any modem other than those marketed by Rockwell chipset stuffers use 
extended v.42?  Was it part of the v.42 recommendation or an annex to that 
recommendation?
 DB> Can you spell hypocrisy?
 RT> C a b a l
Have you managed to find that list of changes to the v.32bis recommendation 
from the time the final draft left SG1 until the General Assembly 
rubberstamped the recommendation?
Have you managed to find any basis for your belief that USR implemented the 
TIA/EIA-592 (Class 2.0 Fax) standard prior to it's being adopted.
Have you managed to find the TIA/EIA standard which defines Class 2 Fax?
Regards,
       David
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------