Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA!mrose
From: mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP
Message-ID: <3726.541809095@nrtc-gremlin.arpa>
Date: Tue, 3-Mar-87 18:00:52 EST
Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.3726.541809095
Posted: Tue Mar  3 18:00:52 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Mar-87 00:23:55 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

We are looking at the same draft.  My problem is that I attended the meeting,
and formed my opinions on that, instead of interpreting the fine points of
the draft.  It was quite clear at the last meeting that GOSIP was not intended
to mandate OSI networking.  Rather it was intended to mandate the types of
OSI networking technology, if one were to buy OSI.

The authority to mandate OSI networking over any other technology, e.g.,
TCP/IP, SNA, or XNS, lies with OMB.  I'm not real clear on this, but there is
some OMB directive in the works which makes that mandate.  If you want to get
paranoid, that is where to start.  It was clear to the GOSIP committee during
the meeting that they were only interested in specifying the OSI technology
they wanted.

From this perspective, GOSIP is a reasonable thing.

Perhaps someone in authority and/or with more insight can shed some light on
this discussion.

/mtr