Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TELNET versus LAT
Message-ID: <1991Jan22.032156.16892@Think.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 91 03:21:56 GMT
References: <9101211758.AA24806@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 33

In article <9101211758.AA24806@decpa.pa.dec.com> mann@star.enet.dec.com (Bruce Mann ZK1-3/J35 DTN 381-1298  21-Jan-1991 1257) writes:
>	To my knowledge, all useful protocols start out being proprietary,
>and evolve into "open" status as they become more widely used. LAT is
>certainly in this transition now.

The standard protocols in the TCP/IP suite have never, to my knowledge,
been proprietary.  Working up the protocol hierarchy, all of
IP-Ethernet-encapsulation, IP, TCP, and the application protocols TELNET,
FTP, SMTP, and SNMP were developed openly.  The BSD R-protocols were
developed privately by Berkeley, but the source has always been available,
and some of them have reasonable protocol descriptions in the manual
entries.  Similarly for X Windows and MIT/DEC.  Sun made the specification
of the NFS protocol available pretty soon after their workstations that use
it became popular.

LAT has been around for at least five years.  When will this "transition"
take place, i.e. when will DEC publish the protocol specification in the
open literature?

>	By the way, while I do agree all protocols can be routed (layer 3),
>I do not agree all protocols should be routed. The routing layer has 
>obvious benefits, but also introduces some obvious problems. For example,
>if every terminal should have its own IP address, why shouldn't every file ?
>Where should the line be drawn ? 

It's generally not necessary to include routing in a high-level protocol
when it normally uses a lower-level protocol that is already routed.

--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar