Re: TCP maximum segment size determination

Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:41:06 PST

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:41:06 PST
To: userID=To: userID=DUM1@SFU.MAILNET,, CERF@A.ISI.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, , oconnor@SCCGATE
Subject: Re: Idle chatter about reference models

Ooops. More off form than I'd realized [/realised]: Belatedly occurred to
me that the Layer, Layer, Who's Got the Layer context is a good one for
remembering that even if the ISORMites still think you've got to traverse
every layer every time, I never did (and they might not any more, if one
thinks things like "MAP" [which, of course, should be "MAPS" to begin with,
since it's a Suite, not just A protocol] are ISORMitic, since it blithely
skips a layer or two on its way). So I'd refine my answer to the original
question to include something like "They sure seem to me to be operating
at L II WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING." That might somehow subsume the notion
that a few people had that they're not really "in" the "stack"--or
perhaps subvert it, if not subsume it. (And I guess it's also
worth pointing out that is assumes HMP, which I haven't looked at,
doesn't muddy the waters and operate over TCP connections, which
would almost make it have to be L III by my insistently non-rigorous
   fuzzy cheers, map
p.s. So as not to generate a new Glossary call, for the benefit of
those who haven't been around long enough, "ISORM" = ISO Reference
Model; ISORMite = follower of the ISORM who I feel is of dubious
worth (as opp. to ISORMist, which is one I feel to be sound in other
respects but wrong about the RM issue). (The reason why I don't
use "OSI" is that I feel it begs the question; i.e., they may say
they're doing Open System Interconnection in their name, but are
they in their RM ... or their standard protocols? Besides, I like the
sound of ISORM.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:57 GMT