Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!gatech!udel!rochester!rit!tropix!moscom!ur-valhalla!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!sunybcs!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!gateway.mitre.org!rick
From: rick@gateway.mitre.org
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: X-WINDOWS & OSI
Message-ID: <8906141943.AA04269@gateway.mitre.org>
Date: 22 Jul 89 19:43:56 GMT
References: <8906061752.AA01135@emu.ncsl.nist.gov>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16


Running X directly over Transport certainly makes sense from
X's point of view, 
but I have my doubts about it being accepted as a "standard" way
to offer X in an OSI environment.  I understand there is a paper 
going around ANSI on how to map X to ACSE and Presentation primitives.
The OSI upper layers may cost you some at startup time, but I don't
think the overhead will be significant after that.  On balance, I
think this approach is better.

There is also an OSI work item called "Terminal Management" that
discusses a rather X-like capability.  Anybody up to date on
how it's going, and how its contributors see the relationship
between X and Terminal Management?

-Rick Wilder