Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.1 8/4/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: CSNET problems
Message-ID: <104@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 19:19:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.104
Posted: Wed Aug 17 19:19:25 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Aug-83 21:57:50 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 49

I certainly have nothing against CSNET, nor do I have any direct
connection with the organization at this time.  Any impression
I've gotten of "problems" with CSNET services is from netmail and
phone calls I've gotten from people who have related various
problems to me over a period of time.  This is not to obscure the
fact that many sites have found CSNET to be useful for the
"mail-only" purpose that it serves, though there are clearly 
some problems.  By the way, my personal feeling is that Usenet
potentially offers as reliable a gateway to ARPANET as CSNET, once
Usenet users are properly educated.  There is just no way that the gateways
will ever be completely shut down in any normal set of circumstances,
since too many ARPA people find it extremely valuable to communicate
with persons at Usenet sites.  If some sort of serious ARPA "breach" ever
occurred, then we might see a gateway shutdown, but the odds are 
that ALL external nets would get knocked off, probably including
CSNET as well in such a case.  This is a personal opinion.

Very briefly, the main complaints I hear about CSNET are:

1) Cost.  Both the fee to join and the transmission costs (remember that
   sites generally talk only to official "relay" nodes -- the net is
   not distributed in the "localized" manner of Usenet) are of concern
   to a considerable number of persons, apparently.

2) Dealing with the Organization.  Apparently the the typical problems
   of dealing with a "central" controlling organization are present
   in many situations with CSNET.

3) Protocol problems.  The dialup communications protocol used is 
   extremely crude (for example, it uses an actual checksum, not
   even a real CRC like the UUCP packet protocol) and does not support
   reasonable "windowing" (again, unlike UUCP).  I have been informed
   of easily triggered fatal "deadlock" conditions in their dialup protocol,
   though I haven't had a chance to personally verify this last point yet,
   but I plan to try soon.

4) Bug fixes.  CSNET tries to maintain tight control over the modification
   of sources relating to the net.  This may well lead to more
   standardization, but MANY users report that bug reports are not
   acted upon for weeks or months or longer.  The CSNET/MMDF code is
   quite voluminous and rather complex, so this can become a serious
   problem.  I've heard *very* many complaints on this issue.

I will freely admit that most of the above is not based on personal
experience (except for some issues regarding the protocol, with which
I am directly familiar) and is instead based on reports given to me
by others.  Feel free to accept or reject this information as you see fit.

--Lauren--