home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
- Date: 29 Jan 87 07:01:22 GMT
- Reply-To: guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris)
- Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
-
- >It would be nice if the standard actually *documented* the 'g' protocol,
-
- It can't do that until it is clear that the specification of this
- protocol can be published without violating the trade secret of UNIX.
- It may be that this is the case, considering Lauren Weinstein has
- built an independent UUCP implementation by watching the packets fly
- by, but I'd want to check first.
-
- (Obviously, if the standard *didn't* document the 'g' protocol,
- putting UUCP in the standard would be of little use - it'd be like
- requiring that a system support creating AF_INET sockets with the
- "socket" call, but neglecting to require that these sockets use TCP,
- UDP, etc.)
-
- Don't forget, though, that there's more to UUCP than just the "g"
- protocol; you'd also have to document its file-transfer protocol that
- sits on top of "g", etc. Fortunately, this is fairly simple-minded,
- but it would have to be included. You'd also have to document the
- format of "X." files, since UUCP without "uux" has limited use.
-
- >and required vendors to support it (with the rising popularity of X.25,
- >perhaps 'f' protocol should be added as well).
-
- And perhaps 't' or 'e', for use over 8-bit-transparent
- flow-controlled and reliable data paths.
-
- >It will take quite some time for the Unix community at large to adopt
- >a replacement for UUCP. If we simply drop UUCP from the standard, we
- >are inviting absolute anarchy!
-
- Do you have a practical alternative? It's not enough to predict dire
- consequences if something isn't standardized; you have to demonstrate
- that it is practical to standardize it.
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 36
-
-