Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!MAINE!MICHAEL From: michael@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Michael Johnson) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: Standardized tools Message-ID: Date: 5 Feb 90 14:46:04 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 30 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway >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. That's reasonable. It satisfies my reason for bringing this up, which is that we need consistent interfaces. >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. Unfortunately, I don't think we can avoid making choices like RFC822 vs X.400, because these are implemented ABOVE the network layer. If we are to have mailers being able to communicate, we're going to need to have SOME standards engraved in stone, at least for the reasonable future. >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 Michael Johnson "We are the Priests of the Temples University of Maine System of Syrinx. Our great computers fill Computing and Data Processing Services the hallowed halls." - Neil Peart