Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!oliveb!ames!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Starlan/Ethernet compatibility
Summary: easy, there.
Message-ID: <36666@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 24 Jun 89 01:28:32 GMT
References: <2009@wasatch.utah.edu> <2230006@hprnd.HP.COM> <26097@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 32

In article <26097@amdcad.AMD.COM>, ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM (Mike Wincn) writes:
> ...flames about Henry Spencer's irritation with the new twisted pair standard
>
> Mike Wincn
> ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM
> (408) 749-3156

It does seem that at least some versions of twisted pair ethernet
are quite handy.  They are clearly easier to install, maintain, and
so forth.  Maybe it is time to have a Standard for them.  It would
certainly be nicer if there were fewer versions then already exist.
Maybe there was a little intemperance in the original irritation.

However, after the votes for less than compelling changes taken in the
X3T9.5 FDDI SMT meeting on Wednesday, I am a little puzzled by someone from
AMD defending the standards process.  Can the FORMAC capture the 6 byte
info field in the newly required "directed beacon"?  If not, how might one
build a network manager with the "SUPERNET Family for FDDI"?  (I understand
the FORMAC can at least send them, unlike the silicon of a big computer
computer vendor.)

Remembering milestones like "Extended BASIC" or "COBOL80" should be enough
to make anyone unenthusiastic about standardization efforts before the
market place has spoken.  All too often, the process is turned into
a way to increase employeement for consultants and a way for
companies who are late to penalize those which had their act more
together.


Vernon Schryver
Silicon Graphics
vjs@sgi.com