Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/v22/019.a.diff

Text File | 1991-03-07 | 4.4 KB | 105 lines

29 vn/019 vn/019.a
1c1
< From [e-mail]  Mon Nov  5 22:49:35 1990
---
> From [e-mail]  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: [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (Keith Sklower)
8,10c8,9
< Subject: Re: USENIX Standards Funding Decisions
< Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
< References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
---
> Subject: P1003.12 solicits comments
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
12c11
< Organization: TIC
---
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
14,15c13
< Date: 6 Nov 90 03:49:03 GMT
< Reply-To: [e-mail]
---
> Date: 28 Nov 90 17:37:25 GMT
18c16
< Submitted-by: [e-mail] (John S. Quarterman)
---
> Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Keith Sklower)
20,60c18,43
< The previous USENIX funding for most standards activities expired on
< Halloween (see <[e-mail]>).  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., [e-mail].
<
< John S. Quarterman, moderator, comp.std.unix and [e-mail]
< --
< John S. Quarterman
< Texas Internet Consulting    [e-mail]    tel: [phone]
< 701 Brazos, Suite 500      uunet!longway!jsq    fax: [phone]
< 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 [e-mail]
> 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.