-=> Quoting David Bowerman to Richard Town <=-
 RT> That's a story.  Or is v.pcm SG16 recommendation to ITU(t) already
 RT> riddled with possible incompatabilities?
 RT> True, somebody somewhere has said something.  But the implications
 RT> are far more serious.  For if V.90 is so riddled with
 RT> incompatibilities as to render is useless, then of what use _is_
 RT> ITU(t) in this regard? 
 DB> Perhaps you should check out a copy of the V.90 draft before babbling
 DB> on about it being riddled with incompatibilities.
I'd prefer real world reports.  For there may be no "Rockwell
incompatibilities" which require extensive interop debugging (as
Lucent and 3Com seem to need)
 
 DB> Your claims that the reports that Rockwell will not be doing interop
 DB> testing are stories -- as in fiction.
I'm sure the raw code authors won't be able to resist the temptation to
fire up one of their creations to see.  Doesn't that go without saying?
 DB> So please post information from
 DB> another Rockwell official stating that the comments from a Rockwell VP
 DB> that Rockwell would not participate in interop testing are false.
How precisely am I supposed to prove a negative?
 DB> perhaps you could post information showing that Lucent, 3Com and ZyXEL
 DB> representatives were lying about doing interop testing.  Your choice.
 DB> To put it bluntly, put up or shut up.
Ask them.  It's their statement.  You seem to be holding onto these reported
remarks in lieu of Linus's blanket
 DB> If you can't post any such information, stuff your bloody Zoom modem
 DB> into any convenient body orifice and quit wasting our time with your
 DB> attempts as a Rockwell apologist.
Oh dear!  He's lost it.
Sad for one that's got such a great future behind him
 
 DB> Richard, you have had several messages posted to you on the V.34
 DB> problems.
But no explanation of why V34 interop was excellent before, but not now
 DB> You might remember the ones from Craig Ford with the data
 DB> output showing how Rockwell's implementation misreported it's
 DB> capabilities?
Didn't make a lot of sense.  V34 Zooms seemed to offer 3429 symbol rate
alright.  But then, not with USR's.  V34Plus Zooms also produced 33k6
connects and with USRs following several USR firmware re-writes
Craig seems to imply that because Zooms were only signalling a line rate
of max 28k8 then that's why only the 3200 rate was negotiated.  Quaint!
Especially for a modem who's then datapump was only a 28k8 hardware-fixed
device 04BC   For 05BA datapumps upon upgrade to V34Plus (or at manufacture)
that line rate restriction was removed.
 DB> The messages that you seem to conveniently disregard in
 DB> your whining about USR.
But not with x2 upgraded.  Why is this?
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------