Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  DoD --> CMOT and SNMP
Message-ID: <12526512473.51.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: 15 Sep 89 20:28:09 GMT
References: <12526341449.22.LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 34

Dan--
   Speaking of "OSI complinat" [or even compliant], I noted with great
interest in the latest issue of _conneXions_ that "some applications
(for example, X.400, version 1984) access Session services directly",
according to the lead article, "Components of OSI: The Session Service"
(p. 2).
   So even if we stipulate that it's undignified lawyering to distinguish
between "OSI" and "osi" (which is what I assume you meant to type), there's
still the fascinating question of whether we get to distinguish between
OSI, The Heralded "Reference Model" and OSI, The Not-Necessarily-Compliant
ISO-Blessed Protocols.  (Note that the question-begging phrase "Protocol
Suite" was intentionally avoided.)  For the RM, as we know, requires that all
"n-entities" communicate with their peer n-entities via "n-1 entities"
[give or take a hyphen]; the I-BP, however--perhaps in conformance to, if not
with, the by-now-ancient Padlipsky's Law which holds that "It's Layer [sic]
5-7"?--have no such compunction, as we've learned before and have just
been reminded again.
   (Aside to purists: no, "reminded again" isn't redundant--though "reminded
of again" might be a tad more idiomatic.)
   Or are the tales that X.400 is/are I-BP unfounded?
   Or maybe there's a new RM?
   I mean, I'd actually kinda like to take the Mother Knows Best approach
myself: the Fuller Context, after all, is that "a prophet is not without
honor save in his own country _and in his own house_", and that gets rather
old after the first dozen years.  But what's a dutiful child to do when
Mother keeps contradicting herself?
   perplexed cheers,
         map

P.S.  Feel free to try to influence the editor of _conneXions_ to run
your msg (with referenced typoes preserved, please) and the above as
Letters to the Editor, if you like--but remember: no copyediting of
my stuff, and I get to reply to your response if you make one....
-------