From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ef4bf3098ab117
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news.illinois.net!attcg1!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada compiler differences
Date: 26 Oct 2004 23:39:44 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <c41HT8BqhuwU@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <dac02c02.0410180447.1a4ed08b@posting.google.com>
 <WSWcd.8$V_2.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
 <OGu$88IWO6CB@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <bRedd.9$ye4.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
 <YDwdd.53169$JG5.650210@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <+Lb8wu$Il5Pz@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <1wVdd.5$Au6.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
 <AHW8gzzLxImS@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <qdzfd.10$dK2.7@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1098851939 27703 192.135.80.34 (27 Oct 2004
 04:38:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5742
Date: 2004-10-26T23:39:44-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <qdzfd.10$dK2.7@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <1wVdd.5$Au6.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:
>> [snip - lots of back & forth]
> 
>> I pointed out that TCP/IP was devised without depending on an underlying
>> mechanism like ASN.1 implementations which solve the marshalling problem.
>> 
> Why is that relevant to the OP's question about implementation 
> differences between compilers and platforms?

I did not claim that it was relevant to anything I did not quote.
I claimed (implicitly) that it was relevant to the particular part
which I quoted.

> Are you suggesting that the standard for TCP/IP be reimplemented using 
> ASN.1 on a variety of platforms?

I am suggesting that TCP/IP was poorly designed in this regard,
but according to technology available today (ASN.1) which may
not have been available when TCP/IP was designed.