Xref: utzoo news.groups:5347 comp.protocols.misc:345
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!ames!amdahl!rtech!llama!daveb
From: daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: Proposed creation of comp.protocols.nfs
Keywords: newgroup,nfs,onc
Message-ID: <2422@rtech.rtech.com>
Date: 9 Sep 88 22:14:48 GMT
References: <342@eagle_snax.UUCP> <10209@s.ms.uky.edu> <55@unet.pacbell.COM>
Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com
Reply-To: daveb@llama.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Distribution: na
Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA
Lines: 22

In article <55@unet.pacbell.COM> childers@unet.PacBell.COM (Richard Childers) writes:
>I think comp.protocols.nfs is a fine idea, provided it's for the objective
>examination of network file systems ( generic ), but I don't think it's a
>fine idea if it's just for Sun's Network File System, specifically. It's
>a means to an end - transporting data - and I think the real interest on
>the part of most readers' minds is transporting data, not helping fix a less
>than perfect standard ...
>
>-- richard

Bzzt, no.  NFS is as specific a protocol as comp.protocols.tcp-ip, and
more so than say, comp.protocols.iso :-).  I don't think the proposal is
intended to create a group for the NFS/RFS/Sprite/etc. wars, but as a
place for people who want to talk about real problems with this real
protocol.

I'm in favor of a technical group, but not of a talk.religion.distributed-
file-systems.

-dB
"Ready when you are Raoul!"
{amdahl, cpsc6a, mtxinu, sun, hoptoad}!rtech!daveb daveb@rtech.com <- FINALLY!