EIA/TIA standard regarding EIA-232 flow control?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by Eric Smith on April 1, 2006, 4:33 am
Please log in for more thread options I could have sworn that a few years ago I saw an EIA/TIA standard that was intended to address the fact that RTS/CTS flow control is in widespread usage, but that in this common usage RTS does not mean request to send, but rather that the DTE is ready to accept data from the DCE. I seem to recall that the standard renamed the signal when used in this way, to something like Ready For Data (RFD?). Anyhow, I can't find anything like that right now. It might have been part of a standard with larger scope. Does anyone recall having seen such a thing? Thanks! Eric | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Eric Smith on April 20, 2006, 1:23 am
Please log in for more thread options I wrote: Apparently it has actually been made a part of the official 232 standard, when EIA/TIA-232-E was published in 1991, and presumably is still in the 1997 standard (TIA-232-F) as well. The corresponding V.24 circuit function is 133, vs. 105 for RTS. I only have the old EIA RS-232-C, so I guess it's time to cough up some money to update my library. Apparently the name of the signal is something like "Ready for Receiving", though generally people still just call it RTS. Eric | |||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| EIA/TIA standard regarding EIA-232 flow control? | April 1, 2006, 4:33 am |
| Standard for Proximity to Power | May 20, 2008, 2:18 pm |
| Cable ends: how important is standard? | December 4, 2004, 10:14 pm |
> was intended to address the fact that RTS/CTS flow control is in
> widespread usage, but that in this common usage RTS does not mean
> request to send, but rather that the DTE is ready to accept data from
> the DCE. I seem to recall that the standard renamed the signal when
> used in this way, to something like Ready For Data (RFD?).
>
> Anyhow, I can't find anything like that right now. It might have been
> part of a standard with larger scope. Does anyone recall having seen
> such a thing?