Keith McCloghrie (kzm@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA)
Mon, 9 Mar 87 10:45:32 PST
I agree with your comments on the GOSIP spec, but not because I am
opposed to ISO/OSI. On the contrary, on that future day when
it replaces TCP/IP, I think it will be to the benefit of all, since
it will encompass a larger audience. This is irrespective of the
technical arguments of which is currently better.
Here are a few more technical criticisms you might add to your paper :
1. [4.2.4] Packet Voice definitely requires use of other than Transport
2. [220.127.116.11] says that end systems connected to public data networks
must implement TP0, but end systems connected to a private subnetwork
must implement TP4 !! This is clearly not inter-operable.
3. [page 19] says "Note that the SNPA is interpreted as decimal digits,
even though the AFI of 47 indicates a binary representation" !! Is
this following the standards ??
4. [top of page 20] specifies that the level-3 address must be encoded
according to which Level-1 protocol is used (eg. 802.3 is given a
NSAP Selector different from 802.4 when both have 802.2 above them).
There is already a subnet-id included in the address. Why mix the
layers like this ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:37:44 GMT