Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!bionet!ames!amdahl!rtech!wrs!hwajin
From: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: UDP bind question
Message-ID: <864@wrs.wrs.com>
Date: 4 Mar 90 04:09:12 GMT
References: <9002201434.AA04791@dcrocker.pa.dec.com> <9002201904.AA04950@yuba.WRS.COM> <1990Feb23.052940.5871@i88.isc.com> <862@wrs.wrs.com> <1990Mar2.054955.24392@i88.isc.com>
Reply-To: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae)
Organization: Wind River Systems, Emeryville, CA
Lines: 17

In article <1990Mar2.054955.24392@i88.isc.com> stevea@i88.isc.com (Steve Alexander) writes:
>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.

I agree wholeheartedly.  No problems there.  I just don't like a single
vendor defining some bogus standard and forcing it down our throats (as
your original message seemed to suggest, but I guess you didn't mean
that -- AT&T putting pressure on vendors of TCP/IP instead of assisting
some commonly supported conformance specs for protocol bindings based on
consensus).  However, the problem also has to do with not just the lack
of such "standardization" efforts (whatever happened to the X/OPEN thing
that looked very much like TLI?) but the reality of corporate greed and
politics.
-- 
Hwa Jin Bae (hwajin@wrs.com)
Wind River Systems