Re: Ways to input your X.400/MOTIS concerns

Steve Langdon (amdahl!sjl@SUN.COM)
Sun, 20 Jul 86 00:00:57 PDT

In message <In message <8607150327.AA07564@opus> nbires!In message <8607150327.AA07564@opus> nbires!atkins@ucbvax (Brian Atkins)
states that the Corporation for Open Systems (COS) is a good way to input
to the international standards bodies and mentioned the National Bureau of
Standards sponsored OSI Implementors Workshop as a less expensive alternative.

I appreciate him mentioning the OSI Implementors' Workshops because they have
been very important in moving OSI protocols from paper to practice. However,
it is important to understand that the main way of affecting standards
development is through the national standards committees. The main role of
the OSI Implementors' Workshops is to interpret existing standards, although
they will sometimes send liaison statements to standards groups. The role
of COS is not to represent COS members in standards bodies - members are
expected to send their own representatives. COS is intended to accelerate
the use and development of OSI and ISDN standards by developing commonly agreed
tests and providing a forum in which members are made aware of areas where
standards development needs to be accelerated.

When discussing COS and the OSI Implementors' Workshops it is useful to know
that they have a complementary relationship. COS intends to base the protocol
inplementation tests on the agreements reached in the Workshops. COS has
also sent the Workshops requests regarding the scheduling and priority of
the subjects discussed in the Workshops. A significant number of COS members
send representatives to the Workshops.

I both attend the OSI Implementors' Workshops and participate in COS activities.
As editor of a report produced by the pre-COS group (which led to COS being
formed) and as chair of the COS Architecture Committee I have consistently
recommended using the agreements reached at the Workshops. However, I do not
believe that COS and the OSI Implementors' Workshops currently represent
alternatives - they are doing different things. Neither is primarily a
method for input to the international standards bodies; this purpose is served
by ANSI approved committees or their equivalents in other countries.

Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl

[ The article above is not an official statement from any organization
  in the known universe. ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:34 GMT