29 vn/019 vn/019.a
1c1
< From jsq@cs.utexas.edu  Mon Nov  5 22:49:35 1990
---
> From jsq@cs.utexas.edu  Wed Nov 28 17:21:52 1990
3,6c3,6
< 	id AA26916; Mon, 5 Nov 90 22:49:35 -0500
< Posted-Date: 6 Nov 90 03:49:03 GMT
< Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.82) 
< From: jsq@tic.com (John S. Quarterman)
---
> 	id AA08807; Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:21:52 -0500
> Posted-Date: 28 Nov 90 17:37:25 GMT
> Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.87) 
> From: sklower@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
8,10c8,9
< Subject: Re: USENIX Standards Funding Decisions
< Message-Id: <14352@cs.utexas.edu>
< References: <106937@uunet.UU.NET> <13100@cs.utexas.edu> <13158@cs.utexas.edu> <13181@cs.utexas.edu>
---
> Subject: P1003.12 solicits comments
> Message-Id: <15201@cs.utexas.edu>
12c11
< Organization: TIC
---
> Reply-To: dot12@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU
14,15c13
< Date: 6 Nov 90 03:49:03 GMT
< Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
---
> Date: 28 Nov 90 17:37:25 GMT
18c16
< Submitted-by: jsq@tic.com (John S. Quarterman)
---
> Submitted-by: sklower@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
20,60c18,43
< The previous USENIX funding for most standards activities expired on
< Halloween (see <106937@uunet.UU.NET>).  The WG15 reports were funded as
< requested back in September.  The snitch report editor has apparently
< made an arrangement for the interim until the next board meeting in
< January.  Efforts are being made to produce proposals for funding other
< USENIX standards activities.  However, since the USENIX board has
< expressed philosophical objection to funding moderation of a newsgroup,
< it is very unlikely that there will ever be support from them for
< comp.std.unix.
< 
< For the moment, I have chosen to continue as moderator while seeking
< support from other quarters.  Preliminary thanks to those who are
< already looking into it.
< 
< If no funding materializes, I simply cannot afford to continue
< taking adequate time to moderate the newsgroup properly, and
< we will have to consider opening nominations for a volunteer
< moderator and voting on it by the usual USENET procedures.
< 
< I strongly recommend keeping comp.std.unix moderated, because:
< 1) The original request for the newsgroup, from IEEE 1003 back
< in 1985 (the first article was posted 25 June 1985), made it
< clear that most standards participants would only read a
< moderated newsgroup.
< 2) Comparing 1989 (unfunded) to 1990 (funded), the increased signal
< to noise ratio and the increased number of interesting postings
< (partly attributable also to the snitch reports, themselves due
< to funding of editing) supports the original request.
< 3) See comp.unix.wizards for what is likely to happen to an
< unmoderated comp.std.unix.
< 
< Meanwhile, there will be a guest moderator, John B. Chambers,
< while I am overseas 6-27 November.  Please send submissions
< to the usual address, i.e., std-unix@uunet.uu.net.
< 
< John S. Quarterman, moderator, comp.std.unix and std-unix@uunet.uu.net
< --
< John S. Quarterman
< Texas Internet Consulting	jsq@tic.com	tel: +1-512-320-9031
< 701 Brazos, Suite 500	  uunet!longway!jsq	fax: +1-512-320-5821
< Austin, TX 78701
---
> The POSIX process-to-process communications working group (P1003.12)
> would like to solicit outside comment.
> 
> The committee wishes to publish an interface at the level of exposed
> detail exhibited by both sockets and XTI.  Previously, the committee
> had been of the opinion that although both sets of existing practice
> were relatively similar, each had technical flaws.  Furthermore,
> each had a user community unwilling to give theirs up and adopt
> the other.
> 
> The working solution the commitee had been pursuing was to combine
> the the best features of the two interfaces, changing the names and
> semantics of the primitives, so that some amount of re-coding would
> be necessary.  The committee was using as its model the level of
> modification done to the job control and termios facilities of P1003.1
> 
> There has recently been vociferous opposition to this plan, arguing
> that vendors would have to support THREE interfaces (sockets, XTI
> and POSIX) and it would be better to have the P1003.12 committee
> issue IEEE standard versions of the existing two, with possible
> backwards compatible extensions and improvements.
> 
> We invite you to submit your reactions to dot12@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU
> for consideration by the committee.  It would be helpful to some of us
> if you would say something about your background or experience with
> either of XTI or sockets.
