Re: GOSIP


Mike Corrigan (CORRIGAN@SRI-NIC.ARPA)
Sun 15 Mar 87 18:00:42-PST


      As I mentioned previously, the concerns which have been raised
  with respect to the applicability statement will be addressed in DOD
  comments on GOSIP. I think, however, it may be useful to quote all
  the relevant portions of the current applicability statement, and
  give an alternate (I might add, the intended, but as Mike Padlipsky
  says, you have to read the words) interpretation of what is there
  now from either of the two views given to date (Mike Padlipsky's and
  WBD.MDC's). The fact that there can be (at least) three views
  argues that the current wording is unacceptably ambiguous, but I
  don't think Marshall Rose, et al. should continue to think they were
  dreaming when they interpreted it differently. There are three
  important statements. I will abridge, but not paraphrase (Those who
  want the missing words can get them from the NIC):

    "It [GOSIP] is mandatory for all new network implementations..."

    "Although GOSIP mandates OSI implementations in products, it does
  not preclude the acquisition of additional (perhaps vendor specific)
  networking capabilities in that same equipment."

    "For a period of two years, agencies are permitted to procure
  alternative interoperable protocols, but they must provide a
  mechanism for those protocols to interoperate with OSI protocols as
  well."

     Statement 1 says that new acquisitions must include GOSIP
  protocols.
     Statement 2 says that any additional protocols which are needed
  may also be acquired.
     Statement 3 is a partial waiver of statement 1, that is, if an
  agency already has an interoperable set of protocols (for example,
  DOD with TCP/IP),
  then it can buy the current suite in lieu of GOSIP protocols for a
  period of two years. After this time, GOSIP protocols are mandatory
  for such agencies as well, but, under statement 2, they can continue
  to acquire their current set of interoperable protocols
  indefinitely.

     Please let me repeat that I agree that other interpretations can
  easily be made of the current statements, and that even if no other
  changes were made to the applicability statement, changes to avoid
  the existing massive ambiguity would be essential. This is why
  GOSIP is out for comment, but I think there is enough material on
  this particular point to assist in the rewrite.

-------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:37:44 GMT