Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!ulysses!ulysses.att.com!smb
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Internet routing Europe - USA -} Europe...
Keywords: JANET, protocols
Message-ID: <13713@ulysses.att.com>
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:08:12 GMT
References: <1990Aug30.091435.1982@ircam.ircam.fr <1990Sep5.092510.22637@cs.city.ac.uk>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com
Lines: 14

In article <1990Sep5.092510.22637@cs.city.ac.uk>, sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) writes:
> Not only is the present Janet policy (coloured books instead of
> TCP/IP) isolating us from the rest of the world, but it looks
> like the ISO transition will do the same again:
> The JNT in its infinite wisdom (???) has mandated that the ISO
> profile used in the UK use TC0 (connection oriented transport
> service) while NBS in the USA is encouraging the use of TC4
> (connectionless transport service).

Without commenting on the wisdom (or the lack thereof) of JANET, the
real problem here is OSI.  They've designed a protocol stack with
mutually incompatible options, thus preventing communication between
parties who've made different decisions.  What's the point of a
standard that's incompatible with itself?