Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!BITNIC!ROBINSON From: ROBINSON@BITNIC.BITNET (Andrew T. Robinson) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Standardized tools Message-ID: Date: 4 Feb 90 16:52:06 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 29 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Your subject -- Re: User interfaces for list postings I think what is required is not so much standardized tools, but guaranteed interfaces at various levels in the protocol stack--with a DEFAULT set of tools that use these interfaces, provided when a node joins BITNET. Because BITNET *is* a multivendor network with no forseeable limit on host system types, it is basically impossible to write a single set of tools that will work for everyone. It is difficult even to find a least-common- denominator in terms of system services, compilers, etc. Well designed interface specifications, on the other hand, are a more reasonable (if not particularly easier) goal. In general, those specifications should be opearating system independent (not use terminology or depend on services provided by a particular operating system) *and* protocol independent (not depend on "low" level protocols, such as NJE, TCP/IP, RFC822, etc). If those goals are to be acheived, people will have to stop thinking in terms of VM vs. Unix vs. VMS, TCP/IP vs. OSI vs. NJE, RFC822 vs. X.400, etc., and START thinking in terms of BITNET: What services we want to provide to the end user. Binding BITNET into existing or proposed protocols is a good way to ensure its eventual demise. By knowing what services you want to offer, you can define access methods that are largely independent of implementation. Such specifications not only make movement among protocol suites possible, but they do NOT inhibit individual/organizational creativity in the development of network applications the way a "standard" set of tools does (if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck). Andy