🚀 go-pugleaf

From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Date: 29 Jan 87 07:01:22 GMT
Reply-To: guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View

>It would be nice if the standard actually *documented* the 'g' protocol,

It can't do that until it is clear that the specification of this
protocol can be published without violating the trade secret of UNIX.
It may be that this is the case, considering Lauren Weinstein has
built an independent UUCP implementation by watching the packets fly
by, but I'd want to check first.

(Obviously, if the standard *didn't* document the 'g' protocol,
putting UUCP in the standard would be of little use - it'd be like
requiring that a system support creating AF_INET sockets with the
"socket" call, but neglecting to require that these sockets use TCP,
UDP, etc.)

Don't forget, though, that there's more to UUCP than just the "g"
protocol; you'd also have to document its file-transfer protocol that
sits on top of "g", etc.  Fortunately, this is fairly simple-minded,
but it would have to be included.  You'd also have to document the
format of "X." files, since UUCP without "uux" has limited use.

>and required vendors to support it (with the rising popularity of X.25,
>perhaps 'f' protocol should be added as well).

And perhaps 't' or 'e', for use over 8-bit-transparent
flow-controlled and reliable data paths.

>It will take quite some time for the Unix community at large to adopt
>a replacement for UUCP. If we simply drop UUCP from the standard, we
>are inviting absolute anarchy!

Do you have a practical alternative?  It's not enough to predict dire
consequences if something isn't standardized; you have to demonstrate
that it is practical to standardize it.

Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 36