Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: rick@seismo.css.gov (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: 1003.2 Command Groups
Message-ID: <7037@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Feb-87 16:27:02 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.7037
Posted: Sun Feb  1 16:27:02 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Feb-87 22:45:23 EST
References: <6710@ut-sally.UUCP> <6783@ut-sally.UUCP> <6818@ut-sally.UUCP> <7002@ut-sally.UUCP>
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 25
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu
Summary: documenting uucp protocols

Lack of documention of the uucp protocols should not be enough to
keep it out of the standard.

I could document all of the necessary uucp protocols, file formats, etc
WITHOUT violating ATT trade secrets or looking at the source.
(The debugging output, a line monitor and cating the files in the spool
directory provide all of the information necessary)

Documenting the 't' and 'f' protocols is trivial because it's not att
code.

However, documenting the 'g' protocol would be a royal bitch without looking
at the source code.

It seems that it would be in ATT's interest to have uucp part of the standard,
so it seems reasonable that they would be willing to give permission to
document the 'g' protocol by looking at the source. I can't conceive of
any competitive loss to them by documenting the 'g' protocol.

If IEEE can get ATT's permission and would want to add the uucp programs
to the standard, I'll document the protocols.

---rick

Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 43