jam@RADC-LONEX.ARPA (02/04/89)
>I think it is pointless to discuss whether or not the addition of VMS specific >changes to the FTP spec. is appropriate. The need for the functionality exists >and it is unreasonable to believe that vendors and other institutions will >discontinue efforts in support of such a need. It is our job to try to meet >the functionality requirements in the best way that we can. >From some of the comments I've seen, I think that some people are still misinterpreting what I said. I didn't request that we kill the discussion of a protocol under ftp for vms. Let that go on... and on... whatever. I realize that nobody is going to stop trying to do specific work to transfer files between VMS, or TOPS-20, or UNIX, or MS-DOS, and whatever other systems are out there. Thats great! There is NOTHING wrong with that! All I asked was should we add it as secondary protocols layers under existing tool protocols (ie: telnet, ftp, etc.) or should new tool protocols be developed. If the goal is to keep the basic tools (ftp...) "open", then new standards for "specific" tools need to be developed. In either case, somebody (the committee) has to make a statement on how us chickens, in "nobody here but us chickens" ;-), in the world of software development are supposed to approach this. I thought there would be enough interest concerning the goals of the network to warrent such a discussion. I'm not going to flame out one way or the other. It's just that this is the first time in recent memory (in this group) where someone has swung near that question again. Perhaps I am wrong. In that case I see myself going down in flames. Wouldn't be the first time. ;-) Joel A. Mussman