Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!npd.novell.com!excelan!donp
From: donp@na.excelan.com (don provan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: High Cost of OSIng?
Message-ID: <2630@excelan.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 91 00:40:37 GMT
References: <9101111905.1.UUL1.3#5653@malamud.com> <988@rm1.UUCP>
Sender: news@excelan.COM
Reply-To: donp@novell.com (don provan)
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California
Lines: 25

In article <988@rm1.UUCP> bapat@rm1.UUCP (Subodh Bapat) writes:
>In <9101111905.1.UUL1.3#5653@malamud.com> carl@malamud.com (Carl Malamud) writes:
>%As you are all probably aware, ISO, CCITT, and ANSI all retain the 
>%copyright on their standards.  The result is that they cost quite a 
>%bit -- a recent  purchase of FTAM specs, for example, cost me $200.  
>
>I think this is perhaps THE major impediment in the proliferation of OSI.
>Most people's knowledge of TCP/IP is direct, acquired from reading the RFC's;
>whereas most people's knowledge of OSI is derivative, acquired from second-hand
>sources, articles, books, etc. 

I do not believe that the cost of the OSI specs is a significant
factor here.  The OSI specs are extremely technical.  Having one in
front of you does not automatically convey knowledge.  I *do* have
access to the OSI specs, but my knowledge of them is *still*
derivative because i don't have the time to study them.  In other
words, there is a much larger cost involved in understanding the OSI
specs than this measly $200, and i believe it's that additional cost
that supports the indirect channels of information you currently see.

(The OSI specs have good reasons for being so technical; the above
paragraph is not intended as an attack on the their quality, just an
observation of their nature.)
						don provan
						donp@novell.com