🚀 go-pugleaf

From: seismo!nyu-acf4.arpa!cmcl2!tihor (Stephen Tihor)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 87 22:45:31 est

What several people seem to be missing in the discussion about including
UUCP in POSIX is that (drum roll) IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STANDARDIZE AN 
UNDOCUMENT PROTOCOL (..actually standardize de jure..).  Everything else
in the POSIX spec is being reasonably specified or left out.  When the
command syntax of UUCP could be standardized that would be about as useful
as standardizing a tar/cpio program without specifing the format in 
which a tape of pure 7-bit ASCII text files is written.  

Sure we all know that most vendors will pay AT&T (or maybe Lauren) for the  
specification to UUCP so that it can run on their POSIX compatible system
but I didn't think the IEEE has sunk to the level of stanrardizing the
external appearance of tool without adequately specifying what it does.

Someone might argue that it doesn't matter how you move data from place to
place UUCP is just the syntax that a POSIX user employs to initiate a 
file transfer and a complying implementation can use FTP or NFS and CP
or whatever to move the data.  This means that it will not be possible
to assume that two POSIX compliant systems can exchange data using modems
and wires.  Ughh!!!  {UUCP as a link to RCP bouble UGH!!}  

Either include the low level UUCP<->UUCP communications specs for as many
protocols as possible so someone can build a UUCP from scratch or don't 
include.  The LAW of LEAST SUPRISES argues greatly against having the name 
not mean at least roughly the same thing.  (After all POSIX is supposed
to bring the family closer together not drive it farther apart.)

Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 23