6-Nov-97 5:12:35-GMT,2729;000000000015 Return-Path: Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143]) by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA19660; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA04442; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from falkor (heiby.pr.mcs.net [204.95.55.134]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id XAA24883; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:12:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971105231131.006bfb90@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: heiby@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:11:31 -0600 To: kermit@columbia.edu From: Ron Heiby Subject: ANSI/IEEE/ISO/?? Standard for Kermit Protocol? Cc: fdc@columbia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I am hoping to get the Kermit protocol included as an "encapsulated protocol" listed within an SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard that I'm working on defining. What's the best way to reference the Kermit protocol within another standard? Is there an ANSI, IEEE, ISO, or other recognized standards body that has "adopted" the Kermit protocol? Is change control for the Kermit protocol still held by The Kermit Project at Columbia? My belief is that while some implementations of the Kermit Protocol require license fees, that use of the Kermit protocol, itself, does not. Is this correct? Is there any other sort of requirement on independent implementations of the Kermit protocol? (I fully expect most implementations of Kermit to be based on an existing implementation, where that implementation's commercial use licensing provisions would apply. Even so, it's important to know the state of the raw protocol, independent of any given implementation.) Thanks! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNGFRf+ukCaFXG1W9AQHFNwf+PxoPamx2Wmx2pDhezDDcM+iJjdeitXqh IJARPzHWQXxlglShjnLyKCTd4MS4zpVPKznDzSW1GmucwBPnp0VT41T5jjJ6yRsT Vm6jX1iZW6ZfNx2Use3221Ue8GCaK/hKs3cM1P9CPPKt2XTRtDI4UaBeUHdrLlaR w38GEykadc9N0KDpKBSmGzUtYo4V/AcPHjvQD4g/L/EsRCJ8kF5w4ADT/7+9iYE4 npDVGGjA4cwHJvHHZF84YdhRvUC3bNUjBOyQri8ZRiuYjfaJMb661v9qJN1RZiPF 47lf0OBEhqrXtDKh9a8+RxxFWqr4TqeS3C3rhMqWt7zz8B2vSOyhOA== =EtVx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Ronald Heiby, President Strategis Consulting Inc. mailto:RHeiby@The-Strategis.com http://www.The-Strategis.com PGP RSA: 0x571B55BD / EDEC 19EF FC71 6B66 4D5D BC87 5BF8 686D PGP DSS/D-H: 0x628ECED2 / 6BAC DC6A A794 4186 A49F 0CD3 66AC 9792 628E CED2 6-Nov-97 14:18:44-GMT,2640;000000000001 Return-Path: Received: (from fdc@localhost) by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA14992; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:18:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 9:18:41 EST From: Frank da Cruz To: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: ANSI/IEEE/ISO/?? Standard for Kermit Protocol? In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:11:31 -0600 Message-ID: Hi Ron. > I am hoping to get the Kermit protocol included as an "encapsulated > protocol" listed within an SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard > that I'm working on defining. > > What's the best way to reference the Kermit protocol within another > standard? Is there an ANSI, IEEE, ISO, or other recognized standards body > that has "adopted" the Kermit protocol? > No. There has been talk of this from time to time (e.g. in connection with EDI) but nobody has ever had the time to follow through. > Is change control for the Kermit protocol still held by The Kermit Project > at Columbia? > Yes. > My belief is that while some implementations of the Kermit Protocol require > license fees, that use of the Kermit protocol, itself, does not. Is this > correct? > Right. > Is there any other sort of requirement on independent implementations of > the Kermit protocol? > No. We have never patented it, although maybe we should have, given the proliferation of shoddy, buggy, half-baked, and downright wrong implementations out there that we take the rap for because they are called "Kermit". > (I fully expect most implementations of Kermit to be based on an existing > implementation, where that implementation's commercial use licensing > provisions would apply. Even so, it's important to know the state of the > raw protocol, independent of any given implementation.) Kermit is an extensible protocol, and it is being extended by us all the time. The final, complete specification for it can be written after I'm dead :-) In the meantime we are constantly improving it in a backwards compatible way. The basic protocol is defined in: Frank da Cruz, "Kermit, A File Transfer Protocol", Digital Press / Butterworth Heinemann, Woburn, MA, 1987, 379 pages, ISBN 0-932376-88-6. http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/manuals.html This definition still holds, and the book is still in print and may be referenced as the one and only Kermit protocol definition. And the definitive source for information about the Kermit Project and software is: http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ Please keep me posted -- I'll be glad to help to whatever extent I can. - Frank