Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.cmu-tek
Subject: RE: CMU-OpenVMS-IP status
From: "Henry W. Miller" <henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:55:12 EST
Reply-To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Organization: The Internet
Return-Path: <@andrew.cmu.edu:CMU-OpenVMS-IP-Request@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu@mccall.com>
CC: henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
Errors-To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP-Request@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu

roes@phcoms.seri.philips.nl (Aloys Roes) writes:

|I've been following the discussion on CMU-OpenVMS-IP for quite a while and
|I am getting a bit worried. I know that people out there are working hard to
|improve and enhance the code and by no means I want to offend them.
|
|A lot of problems are solved and available via the 6.6-5A saveset from
|Henry Miller (SACWMS.MP.USBR.GOV). But these patches don't seem to make
|it into an 'official' version. I've also seen messages of new functionality
|under its way like the R* utilities, a new and better version of NFS and
|other things. But when will these enhancements be available?
|A third thing I notice is that the same questions keep coming back partly
|because the bugs are still in the official release but what also seems to be
|lacking is a FAQ.
|Look at what we've achieved so far since CMU 'put the product in the public
|domain'. WE CANNOT EVEN DECIDE UPON A NEW NAME!!!
|
	I do not know the reason why the patches did not make it into the
"final release"  Actually, I do.  CMU had a consolidation deadline, which
I unfortunately missed due to a death in the family.

	We were waiting for the consolidation release to provide the R
utilities, plus other new utilities.  These will be made available shortly.

	We are still working on the NFS problem.  Our immediate goal is
to stablize the existing NFS, then start working on a rewrite.

	A FAQ is definately needed.  However, after we get a "stablization"
release, many of the items will be moot.

	As far as a name goes, we are constrained to call it what CMU
wants it called for the time being.

|My company has CMU-OpenVMS-IP installed on more then 20 sites. Our group is
|acting as distribution point and internal support contact point. We promote
|it for non-critical installations (for critical applications we recommend
|commercially available products which provide full support). So we are
|VERY interested in the future of the product. But unless somethings changes
|I'm afraid we may have to advise our 'customers' to look at alternatives.
|
|What I think that this product needs is a central contact. Someone
|responsible for coordination of a FAQ, software bundling and possibly
|replying to mails. If nobody will accept this responsibility I'm afraid the
|CMU-OpenVMS-IP product will soon die. Is that what we want???
|
|I'm I volunteering for this job? No, no, no. There are a number of reasons
|why I cannot do it, the most important being that I'm located in Europe and
|that would cause enormous delays in responses to the mailing list since the
|vast majority of the mails is USA/Canada originated. Of
|course I can list a lot of other obstructions like 'too busy', 'no bliss
|compiler/knowledge, 'I'm incompetent', etc..
|
|The important thing here is that I feel that somebody needs to accept this
|task. And it needs to be done within a reasonable time. The first thing that
|person may do is, decide upon is the new name (what a privilege!)
|
	CMU approached me several months ago about taking over support of
the product after the end of 1992.  I agreed.  John Clement and Tom
Allebrandi are working with me.  However, it takes time to get things set
up, and there are a variety of reasons as to why it has taken longer to
set things up than planned.  I should have been more communicative, however
the past couple of months have been hellish.  But, tonight (this morning)
I am biting the bullet and pulling an allnighter to catch up with some
of the outstanding issues.  I've covered most of them - I'll try to hit
the rest of them in the next day or so.

	As I mentioned above, there are still constraints from CMU as to
the name.  Nothing can be done about that in the immediate future.

|Volunteers? Any other thoughts how to stimulate this product? Or am I just
|plain wrong and is everything ok? Reactions please!
|
|
	Hell, I wish I could spend full time working on this,  Unfortunately,
I've got the care and feeding of seven VAXes, two UNIX mini's, who knows
how many workstations and comm gear to take care of.  Not to mention DNS, NNTP,
etc.  But as I have said earlier, once we get the code consolidated and
stablized, there should be many less problems.  As it stands, 6.6-5A is very
stable.  And John has overhauled FTP and LPR, plus added many new whizzy-dizzy
utilities.  We just need to get some kits built, and it's obvious that people
want the stuff NOW rather than waiting for a consolidated kit.  So be it.

	I am planning to throw in a HOSTTABLE utility.  My current plans
are to make it another subfunction of IPNCP.  Any feedback on this?

-HWM
----------
Henry W. Miller
Assistant Systems and Network Manager
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Mid Pacific Region
2800 Cottage Way MP1100
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 978-5108 / FTS - Same as commercial
Inet:	"henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov"

"I've fallen, and I can't get up!"