Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  ISO controversy
Message-ID: <8703081837.a017969@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: Sun, 8-Mar-87 18:37:29 EST
Article-I.D.: Huey.8703081837.a017969
Posted: Sun Mar  8 18:37:29 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 18:48:08 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Mark,

The gloom spreading on this list about the apparent intent of ISO to
overtake and destroy TCP/IP may be premature. When the IAB was briefed
on GOSIP recently, it was understood that GOSIP would serve as the
guide to selecting conforming ISO protocols, which eventually would
be required of all new procurements, in much the same fashion as MAP/TOP.
However, there was no explicit requirement that TCP/IP could not be
operated and procured indefinately in addition to ISO protocols, just
that every procurement must include ISO, even if it isn't actually used.

From my own perspective, which I suspect is similar to that of many other
players in this band, I am working as hard as I can to assist in the
development of an Internet supporting both IP and ISO Connectionless
datagrams. Thus, the system could be used for both protocol suites in
much the same fashion that DDN Basic and Standard X.25 protocols are used
now on ARPANET/MILNET. Then, if our much beloved protocols deserve to
die in the long run, they can be accorded a funeral with honor.

It is easy to ignite discourse on both sides of the ISO-TCP/IP issue, as
seen recently in the newsprint both on and off this list. If in fact
the wrong impression was gathered at the IAB briefing and something more
sinister is afoot, it would be well to resolve the issue quickly, perhaps
in the nature of a DDN Management Bulletin.

Dave