Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!nyser!cmx!jmwobus
From: jmwobus@cmx.npac.syr.edu (John Wobus)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: New Host-Requirement RFCs
Keywords: Host-requirements
Message-ID: <1949@cmx.npac.syr.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 89 20:11:19 GMT
Reply-To: jmwobus@cmx.npac.syr.edu (John Wobus)
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse NY
Lines: 30

Re the new Host requirements RFCs.

The good news: we now know what an Internet host is.

The bad news: there is no Internet host in the world!

The shocking news: of the two vendors I heard speak on the subject
   at Interop, neither plans to fully comply!

I'm happy that the RFCs are completed and I appreciate the work
involved.  However, I'm sure a lot of us users were hoping for
something we could refer to in procurement specifications.  Besides
requiring some less-than-generally-useful features like source
routing, it avoids the issue of implementations not meant to include
all the applications mentioned, i.e., a single-user system which
wisely makes no effort to offer SMTP service.

We will be happier if either vendors change their attitudes or if
another paper (RFC?) is developed to fill the gap--I can imagine
a paper describing everything a host ought to do if it can claim
to offer "TELNET" service, if it can claim to offer "FTP" service,
etc.  Perhaps it could also address the different protocols below
IP too.

Once again, the Host Requirement RFCs represent signficant work in the
right direction.  It is just that they might not turn out
to be QUITE as useful as I had hoped.

John Wobus
Syracuse University