Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!laidbak!stevea
From: stevea@i88.isc.com (Steve Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: UDP bind question
Message-ID: <1990Mar2.054955.24392@i88.isc.com>
Date: 2 Mar 90 05:49:55 GMT
References: <9002201434.AA04791@dcrocker.pa.dec.com> <9002201904.AA04950@yuba.WRS.COM> <1990Feb23.052940.5871@i88.isc.com> <862@wrs.wrs.com>
Sender: usenet@i88.isc.com (Usenet News)
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Lines: 36

In article <862@wrs.wrs.com> hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) writes:
>Talk about trivial differences.  The options data structure differs in
>varying degrees but for all pratical purposes the differences can be
>resolved ....

Sure, but they shouldn't have to be.  The differences between 4.3BSD and
System V Release 3 can be resolved too, but it's a waste of time.  Why 
should I write the same code N different times in slightly different ways?
If I #ifdef my TP0 implementation for WIN, ISC, and LAI, that's great, but
what happens the when some other implementation comes along?

>I don't like Fascism.

Neither do I.  That's not the point.  The point is that there's more to
a transport interface than primitives to support connecting, sending data, 
and disconnecting.  Someone, either AT&T, or a group of interested vendors, 
should do protocol bindings for TLI, and define address formats, options, 
device names and so forth for TCP and UDP.  Then TLI programs that want 
to access a TCP/IP transport stack could be written knowing that they 
would work regardless of the underlying TCP/IP implementation.  Similar 
definitions could be developed for other types of transports.  What's 
fascist about that?  If you don't like fascism, don't use TLI or sockets.  
Write your own transport interface and use that.  Strike a blow for freedom. 
Just don't expect anyone else to use it, because it would be fascist to 
force it on us.  

As an implementor of TCP/IP, I don't care what the address and options
formats are as long as they work.  As a user of TCP/IP, I care because
I want my programs to be portable.  Portable does not mean #ifdef'd.  
#Ifdef'ing only means that my program is portable to the systems that
I've ported it to.  I want it to be portable to as many systems as possible
without modification.  I can't do that with the current mess.

--
Steve Alexander, Software Technologies Group    | stevea@i88.isc.com
INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL | ...!{sun,ico}!laidbak!stevea