RE: "Proprietary" internetworking protocols (was RE: The future will be easy to use )

Oops, sorry about the unfortunate juxtaposition of POTP with 
the SKIP thread. I didn't mean to imply anything more about POTP
than that they were around in Boston in case anyone wanted
to talk to them.

My comments about "proprietary" internetworking protocols
related to discussion of Sun's SKIP, not at all to POTP, whose
protocol hasn't been published and won't be published if they
don't get their patent.

I was simply observing that Perry's comment:

"...an internetworking protocol [e.g. SKIP] used by only 
one vendor gets nowhere."

is not necessarily true, and pointed to SSL and NFS as 
counter-examples.

-pl

Phill wrote:

>Both Netscape and Sun had a product that had a large number of seats. From what I 
>have seen the POTP have diddly squat in the way of seats.
>
>Looking at the market today it is clear that there are fewer oppotunities to do that 
>type of roll out. Netscape and Sun were running just ahead of a market. Today I 
>don't see how many people will want to abandon PGP for a product that is 
>indistinguishable from smoke 'n mirrors.
>
>	Phill

Pete Loshin writes:
> I was simply observing that Perry's comment:
> 
> "...an internetworking protocol [e.g. SKIP] used by only 
> one vendor gets nowhere."
> 
> is not necessarily true, and pointed to SSL and NFS as 
> counter-examples.

I disagree.

First of all, NFS was not competing with other widely available
standards.

Second of all, other vendors are committed to developing the other
standard.

What good will it be to run SKIP when your Cisco router wants to talk
to you with something else?

Perry