Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!nsc!pyramid!infmx!kwang From: kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: A proposal on a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso" Message-ID: <4431@infmx.UUCP> Date: 6 Jun 90 19:23:59 GMT Reply-To: kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) Organization: Informix, Menlo Park, Ca. U.S.A. Lines: 99 >From: mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) wrote: >I think you've missed April Fools' Day by about 2 months and 4 days! >But, if you were serious, then you are probably 9 years, 9 months, and >26 days premature in sending your message. Yes. I am so serious. We need to create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols. migrate.to.iso". For instance, recently I've designed and implemented RDA (ISO/IEC DP 9579-1) on top of SunLink OSI and TCP/IP with RFC 1006 on my SPARCstation 1. Actually, I've embedded it into ISODE 6.0. However, a lot of customers wanted to put it on top of lpp (RFC 1085). I have a trouble with finding those specific bridges between RFC 1085 and "pure" OSI stack. If we create those new newsgroup, then we can have an info on migration from "old" TCP/IP technology, SNA, or other protocols to "new" OSI technology. As far as I know, application gateways, transport gateways, network tunnels, protocol tunnels, etc are the only primitive methods for the migration. Actual environment needs higher technology. >The Internet suite of protocols is only now coming into its own. This >"old" technology is quite vibrant and has a lot of life flowing into it. >It is also the only thing that works today across multiple vendor lines. >Further, when meaningful comparisons can be made, it also seems to be >best technology around, as evidenced by its wide deployment and ever-maturing >market. I don't quite agree with it. As I've explained, since the U.S. Government is getting poorer, they can not afford to replace the "old" technology. Moreover, they don't want have an error especially under tactical environments. That's why TCP/IP technology is now getting matured. But I don't think it is "best" technology. I would call it "old" technology. About 1983, I had a chance to design and implement DoD protocols with MIL STD for the U.S. Government. I've found a whole bunch of errors on MIL STD specs. I wrote a letter to DCA about those errors. Still 1990, they are using the same MIL STD specs. Do you know why ?? Because they don't have enough money to revise it. Actually, MIL STD were written by UNISYS under some contract. >If Korea and Japan really have thrown out TCP/IP (which I don't believe >for a second), then they've made a strategic error. Certainly in >Europe, the bastion of OSI, they've determined that if you want to >actually do networking, as opposed to talk about networking, then you do >it with TCP/IP. I know of several places in Europe where the phrase >"IP router" is utterred with reverence and occasionally awe! Marshall Rose... If you are saying same words to Korea or Japan Government/Industries/ Universities, they are going to laugh. About a year ago, when I had a chance to go back to Korea, I was invited from several institutions and Korea Government Organizations which are dealing with the highest technologies in the world. Not many people wanted to talk about TCP/IP. They were already migrated to OSI world. In these days, I am envolved with the projects with Euroupe. That's why I was interested in U.K. GOSIP. They are interested in U.S. "old" TCP/IP technology, but I don't think they will change their existing systems for it. >Although I'm hopeful that someday OSI might produce competitive >technologies, I'm not going to hold my breath. It is not enough to do >something different, you must do it better, a lot better. Although >service for service, the OSI effort is more ambitious than the Internet >approach, the OSI pseudo-products on the market are, by and large, much >less functional and robust than their Internet competitors. It is not >enough to have a standard for multi-media message handling (X.400), you >must implement it fully and ubiqiutously in order to displace a >omnipresent memo-based system (RFC822). And yet, when I survey the >X.400 offerings on the market, I still find many lacking features found >in many of today's RFC822 implementations, and at prices that are truly >astounding. The same is true, sadly, for FTAM, and VT. (And this >really isn't the fault of the vendors! OSI technology is extraordinarly >expensive to produce in terms of time and people.) I have high hopes >for OSI Directory Services (X.500), since there really isn't a >competitor in the Internet suite; but, I fear that political problems >will make a global Directory improbable. Some of your statements I agree. Evenif OSI technologies are still premature, I don't see 10 years. It's slow sometimes, but the whole world is rapidly moving into one OSI world. >If you are interested in transition technology, there have been papers >and books printed on this subject for nearly a decade (you might start >with Green's paper on "Protocol Conversion" in IEEE Trans. on Comm., >March, 1986). There are also some things specific to Internet->OSI >transition, for example one popular book on OSI devotes about 90 pages >to the topic. Thank you for the good reference. Actually, I've enjoyed your "The Open Book" and ISODE 6.0 source codes more. Again, I think we need to create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso" Thanx. Kwang Sung Informix Software, Inc. 4100 Bohannon Dr. Menlo Park, CA 94025 415 / 926 - 6758 (O) UUCP: ...!uunet!infmx!kwang ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: The above opinion was nothing to do with my employer.