Re: Does TCP/IP "comform" to ISO/OSI?


Nick Felisiak (mcvax!tarantula.spider.co.uk!nick@uunet.UU.NET)
Fri, 2 Sep 88 15:58:58 WET DST


In <13887.589071350@twg.com>, : Marshall Rose <mrose@twg.com>
responds to Phil Karn

>
> Phil, you make me sad. But now I will make you angry!
>
> Neither you nor I are unbiased observers. In as much as you have given
> your slanted view (i.e., no need for session, presentation should be
> application-specific, etc.), I might as well give my slanted views.

[ Most deleted for brevity, etc]

> The problem is that you snipe at the parts you don't like, rather than
> trying to appreciate the entire picture. On the whole, OSI has a lot of
> good points going for it, even though some of the actual parts are
> pretty lousy.
>
> /mtr
>
The problem I (and I suspect, a lot of the TCP community) have, is that
the ISO group have wantonly re-invented, or changed layers which work
perfectly well - the change of the Ethernet type field being a classic example.

There is a lot good about some of the higher level stuff - but there's a lot
bad as well.

TCP satisfies most of the requirements of an international
standard - it works, and it's non-proprietary. It has a shortcoming in that
its network layer does not fit in with the c 1920 style of communication
understood and supported by most of the PTTs.

ISO has made a lot of people a lot of bucks running seminars; it has yet to
make anyone a worthwhile communication service.

Meanwhile, the PR engine has managed to give it enough momentum that millions
of Pounds/Dollars are being spent discarding working systems in favour of
(as yet) unproven ideas.

Sorry if this is a bit strong, but it is late on a Friday ... ah well.

Usual disclaimers apply - I'm sure the company line is different.

Nick Felisiak (nick@spider.co.uk) (nick%spider.co.uk@uunet.uu.net)

Spider Systems Ltd
Edinburgh
Scotland



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