ljm@TWG.COM (Leo J McLaughlin) (07/26/89)
>This table is meant to service users of the network in gaining more >information about a product. In order to limit the "commercialism" >that is inherent in this Scorcard, each vendor is allowed to supply >either a single Internet address... We are writing TCP/IP software, right??? I quick telnet to sri-nic.arpa and a few WHOISs reveals the address (and usually much more) of every 'vendor' on the list. (Assuming you know that the FUSION package is NRC's, KA9Q is Phil Karn's, and Wollongong is really *The* Wollongong Group. These tidbits of information should probably be added to the scorecard.) Those vendors without much additional information (including TWG to my dismay) will usually answer to sales@address or support@address. Adding the NIC's address and a bit of information about who it is and what does would be a good deal more useful to users and the Internet than a list of our FAX numbers. Perhaps some site might get IP addresses assigned BEFORE they installed their network (8^)). Moreover, the whole point of 'limiting the commercialism' is that this forum is designed to promote a safe and sane Internet with TCPs that work. Promoting the NIC certainly meets those criteria. Providing the addresses of Phil Karn, James B. VanBokkelen, myself, or anyone else who does real, live protocol work to future protocol builders who might not have access to the NIC meets those criteria. (Though if you read this list how could you not know our addresses?). The PC/IP Scorecard is a sales slick, albeit a multi-vendor one. The entries are not "is IP reassembly supported", "may user set 0 or 1 for IP broadcast", or "may user set Time-to-live", the sort of question one would like ask to keep the Internet from melting down, but are instead a listing of product features a potential customer might find useful. If you believe that dispersing information about and making readily available as many TCP/IP implementations as possible comes under the heading of promoting TCPs that work (which appears to be the justification for the PC Scorecard) then it is counterproductive to limit the information about the vendors. Phone numbers, FAX numbers, email addresses, and mail addresses could all be useful to make available a particular package to some potential TCP/IP user. On the other hand, if you believe that dispensing any information about how to obtain a product is 'commerical' for the purposes of the net then justifing a breach of that policy by limiting it to one piece is absurd. enjoy, leo j mclaughlin iii Project Manager The Wollongong Group ljm@twg.com
romkey@amiga.UUCP (John Romkey) (07/26/89)
I agree. I suggested adding more information on TCP/IP sources to the scorecard long ago. I strongly believe that addresses and telephone numbers be supplied for all appropriate entries. If there's to be an argument, notice that the NIC publishes the vendor's guide (whatever it's called this year), which lists that sort of information, as a service to the TCP community. I think that leaving out this information for the sake of limiting "commercialism" is absurd. - john
epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) (07/27/89)
If you're actually going to take enough "personal responsibility" to use the NIC, you might as well grab a copy of their Vendors Guide from NETINFO:. -=EPS=-