Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bbn!bbn.com!mckenzie
From: mckenzie@bbn.com (Alex McKenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: TP0-4 question (novice level)
Keywords: TP
Message-ID: <46993@bbn.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 89 20:12:33 GMT
References: <2549@hub.UUCP> <1989Oct16.173618.25068@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: mckenzie@labs-n.bbn.com (Alex McKenzie)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 12

The cost people were trying to avoid is coding (and memory space) cost,
not execution cost.  I won't argue whether or not people should have
been concerned about these costs, but they were.  The argument was that
if they could count on a network layer that either delivered data
reliably or reset the connection, why should they be obliged to
implement a complicated Transport Layer.  They similarly argued for
"null" or highly specialized Session, Presentation, and Application
layers in many cases.  Of course politics and religion are also present
in these discussions, but you said you weren't interested in those.

Alex McKenzie