Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!ut-sally!LOGNAME From: LOGNAME@ut-sally.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: Re: 1003.2 Command Groups Message-ID: <7134@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Feb-87 15:05:55 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.7134 Posted: Wed Feb 11 15:05:55 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 06:29:35 EST References: <6710@ut-sally.UUCP> <6783@ut-sally.UUCP> <6818@ut-sally.UUCP> <7091@ut-sally.UUCP> <7111@ut-sally.UUCP> Sender: LOGNAME@ut-sally.UUCP Reply-To: jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) Organization: Codex Corp, a division of Motorola; Canton, MA, USA Lines: 58 Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman) In article <7111@ut-sally.UUCP>, gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: > Perhaps you use UUCP, but I use DOD Internet protocols and > don't wish to have UUCP forced on my environment. > > Network standards are a whole nother ball game and do NOT > belong in the POSIX standard. This is exactly why we need "optional standards". True, not everyone wants UUCP or TCP, but it would help greatly if the standards said something like: "You don't have to implement the UUCP or TCP packages, but if you choose to do so, they should behave as follows...." [ There already are standards for the TCP/IP suite. -mod ] For another example, we wouldn't expect everyone to support the C-shell, but if they have something called "/bin/csh", then it really should be a C-shell, and not some other sort of program with an unrelated function. [ That is probably within the scope of 1003.2. It is not within the scope of 1003.1, i.e., POSIX, nor are network standards within the scope of either. There is a /usr/group Working Group on that subject, as reported in mod.std.unix Volume 9, Number 49 Message-Id: <7091@ut-sally.UUCP>: /usr/group Working Group on Network Interface: Gil McGrath AT&T Information Systems (201)522-6182 -mod ] Despite UUCP's problems, it is in fact a useful off-the-shelf file-transfer package. I'd like to see it part of a standard package, though if "rcp" were available, I'd certainly use it rather than "uucp". Now, as for kermit.... [ Rcp is not part of the standard TCP/IP suite. It may never be, as many people hope it will vanish entirely in favor of distributed file system standards. See also /usr/group Working Group on Distributed File System: Dave Buck D.L. Buck & Associates, Inc. 6920 Santa Teresa Bldg, #108 San Jose, CA 95119 (408)972-2825 -mod ] -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 54