Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!NNSC.NSF.NET!craig
From: craig@NNSC.NSF.NET (Craig Partridge)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Internet OSI migration vs. other TCP-IP OSI Migration
Message-ID: <9006281238.AA24529@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 Jun 90 11:59:45 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43


>>It seems to me that it would be very useful for you to bring your discussion 
>>and proposals for OSI migration into the appropriate IETF WGs, rather than 
>>duplication efforts  (or at least leave the discussion in the ISO mailing 
>>list, which has a lot of cross participation), 
>
>	I understood. However, IETF-OSI WGs are mostly working within Internet
> community. There are a lot of companies such as Informix who does not access
> the Internet directly, but wants to migrate to OSI from TCP/IP, SNA, DECNET,etc.
> In that sense, IETF-OSI cannot resolve more general migration strategies.
> I think USENET is the easiest network we can get. Therefore, I would like to 
> create such a newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration" on USENET. Right now, 
> only 73 persons were listed for votes. Among them, 25 persons said "NO". 
> Obviously, currently there are not much traffic on "comp.protocols.iso". 
> However, it IS necessary to create such a newsgroup on USENET for the future, 
> since I am confident all of our networking fields are moving towards one OSI 
> world.

I don't understand the thinking behind this comment.  Because you don't
have Internet access (but can clearly get Internet e-mail), you want to create 
a separate list?

Or is it, because we have TCP-IP but are not on the Internet, we don't
believe the Internet TCP-IP migration strategy will help us?  If it is
this (latter) concern, I think you're wrong.  Much better to have one
coherent TCP-IP to OSI migration plan than to have three or four or five.
Particularly since multiple plans permit multiple versions of OSI as
targets, with the result that people will migrate to incompatible versions
of OSI.  Then we'll all have to get together to plan the OSI to OSI
migration (unless Milo Medin with his reverse migration WG [OSI back to
TCP-IP] gets there first).

>>In my opinion, this would only further splinter the available resources, and 
>>possibly do exactly what none of us want to see right now -- slow down the 
>>process.

>	In my opinion, this will make OSI world more active and aggressive.

Well, making things active and aggressive isn't necessarily good.  Making
the world effective is the goal.

Craig Partridge
IESG Area Director, Host and User Services