Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

Graphics meeting report (RFC0282)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003419D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Dec-08
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 7 page(s) / 17K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

M.A. Padlipsky: AUTHOR

Abstract

The second Network Graphics Group Meeting was convened at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab at 6:00p.m. Sunday, November 21st. (Attendees are listed in the Appendix.) Jim Michener served as chairman, and I either volunteered or was volunteered to serve as recording secretary, with Karl Kelly's assistance in keeping notes.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 16% of the total text.

Network Working Group M. A. Padlipsky

Request for Comments: 282 Project MAC

NIC: 8164 December 8, 1971

GRAPHICS MEETING REPORT

The second Network Graphics Group Meeting was convened at the

Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab at 6:00p.m. Sunday, November

21st. (Attendees are listed in the Appendix.) Jim Michener served

as chairman, and I either volunteered or was volunteered to serve as

recording secretary, with Karl Kelly's assistance in keeping notes.

An agenda was agreed upon for the meeting, covering three major

topics: 1) reports on the experiments which had been set up at the

July meeting, 2) prepared talks by attendees who had general points

to raise about Network Graphics, and 3) specification of a "first-

pass" graphics protocol. Before the reports were given, some general

discussion was held on two important topics: the "context" problem

(just how, in the Network sense, are graphics connections

established, and who is supposed to do what for whom), and what might

be called the "console types" problem (should there be a separate

protocol for inherently static storage tube type devices and one for

inherently interactive refresh type devices which have their own

processors, or can we come up with some sort of continuous -- or

layered -- single protocol which covers both). Both points were

noted as being necessary to keep in mind for the protocol

specification phase of the meeting, an apparent consensus emerged

that a single protocol would be preferable, and the reports on

experiments were turned to.

REPORTS ON EXPERIMENTS

RAND - UCSB

Eric Harslem of RAND and Ron Stoughton of UCSB reported on their

experiment, which entailed use of the UCSB On-Line System (OLS) from

RAND Videographics terminals. As demonstrated by a videotape which

was shown, the experiment was successful. An RFC describing the

simple protocol they used is forthcoming. As noted in their

discussion and in the RFC, the experimental protocol is not being

proposed as a Network standard. In addition to using OLS from RAND,

a subsidiary experiment tested the sensitivity of the hook-up to

variations in the size of the allocations (in the Host-to-Host

Protocol sense) given at the RAND end. It seemed clear from the

videotape of the same pictures being drawn at various allocation

levels that larger allocations allow for noticeably smoother

"drawing" at maximum allocation, the picture essentially appeared all

at once, whereas at minimum allocation...