Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.lan
Subject: Re: Re: Standards for commercial packet radio
Message-ID: <1441@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 20:57:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1441
Posted: Sun Aug 25 20:57:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 00:46:10 EDT
References: <1919@amdahl.UUCP> <472@petrus.UUCP> <166@rpics.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.dcom:1201 net.lan:987

In article <166@rpics.UUCP> schoff@rpics.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) writes:
>> The refusal of any of the commercial standards
>> organizations to consider datagram protocols is what prompted the DoD to
>> develop their own.
>> 
>Then they realized that they had enemies too and have "built" a
>transport protocol (TP4) which lives on top of a datagram network
>protocol.  :-)

As I read the intent of the CCITT folks working on OSI (and this is
based on an OMNICOM seminar taught by Hal Folts, so his biases may
be what you're seeing here) they think virtual circuits are wonderful
and that anyone who would do anything with a datagram must be crazy.
As evidence to support this, they point to the fact that in 1980,
X.25 had a datagram facility, but by 1984 nobody had implemented it,
so it was deleted from the 1984 spec.  (It seems to me that there was
no serious demand for datagrams from the common carriers until around
1982 or 1983 when TCP/IP became popular - CSNET would have been the
first real user.)

Most of the interest in TC4 and CLNS seems to be from the people doing
the AUTOFACT stuff - mostly American computer companies.  The Telcos
which make up CCITT have decreed that there will be no wide area
network protocols except X.25, and they are trying to move the LAN
protocols in the connection oriented direction.  (Did you know that
IEEE 802.3 has a connection oriented mode?  Does anyone care?)  They
have gone so far as to get DOD to announce that the preferred interface
to the ARPANET is no longer 1822, it's X.25.  I have no idea how you are
supposed to get through a virtual circuit oriented X.25 bottleneck to
send IP packets out over the ARPANET, this must make an interesting story.

	Mark