Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!VAX.FTP.COM!jbvb
From: jbvb@VAX.FTP.COM (James Van Bokkelen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: U.S. Air Force Award of the ULANA Contract
Message-ID: <8810061519.AA11997@vax.ftp.com>
Date: 6 Oct 88 15:19:08 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

I can appreciate that a lot of work went into the spec, and I have only
seen one piece of it (the TCP/IP specifications), but I get the feeling
that at least a little of that was done in somewhat of an informational
vacuum.  Otherwise, why would they have: 1) asked that non-TOPS-20 systems
support FTP's "page mode", 2) required Satnet Stream ID as an IP Option,
3) used the MilStandards even when they are obsolete (for FTP) or
contain known errors (TCP and IP), and 4) not require subnet support?

If the "Requirements for Internet Hosts" RFC had been done a year ago,
would the authors of ULANA have known about it?  Could they have used
it, if they had (perhaps because it wasn't MilStd)?  I hope that the next
generation of this spec can, and does...

James VanBokkelen
FTP Software Inc.