Re: A matter of principle Re: TAP is not proprietary

[Eric Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 8 Sep 92 22:15:58 PDT Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> said:

>> I just  don't understand the point  of such an attitude.  One can give
>> IDENT the old TAP port and continue these silly discussions forever
>
>You completely misunderstand.  It is TAP that is not  a standard, and it
>has been using (perhaps inappropriately) the port assigned for RFC-931.

Hi Eliot, long time no fence.

I am not that stupid Eliot, and you know it. I understand that TAP is not
a rubber stamped standard, and you will recall that my note said that, if
TAP  were to  prosper  in spite  of  the  new standard,  it  would be  an
indication  to the  IETF that  TAP, too,  should become  a standard.  But
unless I am mistaken, RFC931 was not  a workable protocol and that is how
TAP  came to  be: people  spontaneously fixed  the holes  in RFC931  in a
certain way,  a way  that worked  but wasn't the  way IDENT  chose. Again
unless I am mistaken, TAP is what is  being run on port 113 today - there
is no "pure RFC931" client, or maybe there is one but it is on ice.

>The *real*  question is  whether we  should lend  credence to  a defacto
>standard that is not ours?
                      ^^^^

You have just hit  the root of the problem. You  guys are busy discussing
whether or not to do something that might be construed as being nice to a
non-standard protocol which is not *yours*. But as a user, I really don't
give a damn whose standard it is.  Users want their mac to purr when they
click on the icon,  if it shows them a bomb instead they  are going to be
pissed.  Are   you  working   for  the   users  of   for  some   sort  of
cultural/bureaucratic elite?

  Eric