Re: GOSIP


Marshall Rose (mrose@nrtc-gremlin.arpa)
Tue, 03 Mar 87 07:01:13 -0800


    Mike - I do not claim to have all the answers on GOSIP, but I
    believe that one of us is severely misinformed as to GOSIP's
    *intent*.

    GOSIP simply states (according to my paraphrasing):

         If a US Govt. organization wishes to buy OSI networking
         technology, then these are the guidelines that organization's
         procurement authority should use when specifying the
         requirements for said technology.

    As such, the GOSIP spec, although containing some minor errors, is
    entirely consistent with reality. I believe that the problem
    arises from the fact that you (and I) consider TCP/IP to be OSI in
    addition to the ISO/CCITT stuff. The people writing the spec do
    not view it that way, they view OSI as being "proprietary" to the
    international standards organizations.

    Given this perspective, let me make a couple of observations:

    GOSIP does not say "let's trash this TCP/IP and ISO". It says "if
    you're going to buy ISO, then in FY87, this is what you should be
    buying". Mike, you've really got to get this us vs. iso chip off
    of your shoulder, it is starting to damage your spinal cord and
    hence you sense of balance.

    GOSIP is actually quite realistic in what it suggests:

         There is no usable virtual terminal protocol from ISO these
         days, so they don't try to specify one. That is responsible.

         The FTAM DIS will be an IS "any day now" and the changes from
         DIS to IS are very minor. So, saying the FTAM DIS is OK, is
         again, a fine thing.

         Finally, the reason that the CCITT X.400 (MHS) stuff doesn't
         have a presentation layer, is that it pre-dates the ISO
         presentation layer. There are, however, several
         implementations of X.400 which do work (and interoperate with
         each other). The current joint ISO/CCITT work in message
         handling, called MOTIS, does make use of ISO presentation
         layer, adhering to that model of 7+3i that we love so well.
         Again, since there are X.400 implementations that are working,
         let me remind you what someone said in his collection of essays
         on networking:

              Do you want protocols that look nice or protocols that
              want nice?

         Given the charter of GOSIP as I interpret it, again they are
         doing just fine.

    Now, if you want to talk about unrealistic goals, I will privately
    tell you what other OSI mavens are proposing for the '88 time-frame
    (you think SDI is complex and has to do a lot? heh, heh, heh, have
    I got a user profile for you!)

    But, I digress: let me come back to the start of the message.
    GOSIP does not say "TRASH TCP/IP". It would be much better for the
    networking gurus of the Internet to look at the spec and be helpful
    rather than view it as an attack on motherhood. Of course, as you
    know, I like both technologies: that's why I'm running FTAM DIS now
    in a TCP/IP network. I have this great ISO application running on
    a stable Internet. What can I say? It's great!

/mtr



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:37:43 GMT