Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:16410 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:6115 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!fernwood!uupsi!intercon!news From: kdb@intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: B&W, FTP, Intercon, Interlink, and TGV Utilities Agreement Message-ID: <284E57C5.3A44@intercon.com> Date: 6 Jun 91 15:41:56 GMT References: <42921@cup.portal.com> Sender: usenet@intercon.com (USENET The Magnificent) Reply-To: kdb@intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation Lines: 36 In article <42921@cup.portal.com>, Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: > 1) Why did this group choose to create its own authentication, timing, > and other basic services? Why not just implement the OSF services? > Was the desire to have a completely public-domain alternative to > the OSF services? > Yes, although I would rather call it open standards, than public-domain. > 2) Why is Sun absent from the list of sponsoring companies? > Since you are using their RPC for these services, it seems > like they have a lot to gain (publicity-wise, at least). > Yes they do. When they will "join" is not known. I am relativly sure that they will at some point. > 3) The article says that the initial project concentrates on mail > and print services. Can someone explain exactly what is being done > here, and why are SMTP/POP and LPD-type utilities not sufficient > for the desired purpose? > Think of SMTP/POP as 1st generation applications/protocols. Then it will become clearer what is being attempted. Keep your eyes open around InterOp 91. > This strikes me as an interesting agreement, somewhat in the spirit > of FTP's initial packet-driver effort. With strong support from the > user community it might just succeed. I think I speak for all. We hope that this is true. Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 InterCon Systems Corp. Creators of fine TCP/IP products for the Macintosh