Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!STJOHNS
From: STJOHNS@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]13-May-86.18:38:48.STJOHNS>
Date: Tue, 13-May-86 21:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]13-May-86.18:38:48.STJOHNS>
Posted: Tue May 13 21:38:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 17:47:15 EDT
References: <860513093608.7.MARGULIES@REDWING.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

I  am not sure I see the problem here.  A "private file protocol"
is just that - PRIVATE.  It is run between machines that make the
assumption  that  they are all running the same private protocol.
Or is there the possibility that one machine is running  multiple
PRIVATE file protocols?

Either  a  protocol is a network wide standard - implying that is
is documented, and that it is designed for at least a minimum  of
interoperability  -  or  it  is private, with little or no public
documentation, and with no designed  interoperability.   In  this
context,  I  am  talking  about global interoperability, not just
interoperability between UNIX systems for example.

I can see  some  advantage  though  in  providing  some  sort  of
sentinal  as  part  of the PRIVATE protocols to say "I am running
FOO as my private protocol, go away if you don't talk FOO".   But
wouldn't  this  more  properly  be  part  of  the protocol?  Each
protocol should do some  confirmation  for  robustness  purposes,
right?

Mike