Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!nsl.dec.com!dcrocker
From: dcrocker@nsl.dec.com (Dave Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: UDP bind question
Message-ID: <9002201434.AA04791@dcrocker.pa.dec.com>
Date: 20 Feb 90 14:34:13 GMT
References: <9002150303.AA01899@yuba.WRS.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

The differences between sockets() implementations, as you state, is
pretty much a case of implementation error, except to the extent that
4.2BSD and 4.3BSD have differences or to the extent that one fixes
bugs in the semantics of them.  (That is, the Berkeley implementations
are the formal definition to sockets(), by definition.  But, they
have bugs.  If one implements sockets() on a new platform, but fixes
those bugs, you no longer conform to the 'formal' definition to
sockets().)

The differences between implementation of TCP available through TPI or
TLI are deeper.  Because the service interfaces to TPI and TLI are not
perfectly matched to TCP, there are design choices to be made.  They
are, of course, made differently by different implementors and therefor,
they are incompatible.

The test of this issue is the extent to which an application can be
ported from one Streams environment with TCP to another one, without
code change.  The answer is that many applications need to be changed.

Dave
28