Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA!kzm
From: kzm@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP
Message-ID: <8703091845.AA14228@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 13:45:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ACC-SB-U.8703091845.AA14228
Posted: Mon Mar  9 13:45:32 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Mar-87 05:24:58 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 31
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Mike,

I agree with your comments on the GOSIP spec, but not because I am
opposed to ISO/OSI.  On the contrary, on that future day when
it replaces TCP/IP, I think it will be to the benefit of all, since
it will encompass a larger audience.  This is irrespective of the
technical arguments of which is currently better.

Here are a few more technical criticisms you might add to your paper :

1. [4.2.4] Packet Voice definitely requires use of other than Transport
class 4.

2. [4.2.7.3] says that end systems connected to public data networks
must implement TP0, but end systems connected to a private subnetwork
must implement TP4 !!  This is clearly not inter-operable.

3. [page 19] says "Note that the SNPA is interpreted as decimal digits,
even though the AFI of 47 indicates a binary representation" !!  Is
this following the standards ??

4. [top of page 20] specifies that the level-3 address must be encoded 
according to which Level-1 protocol is used (eg. 802.3 is given a
NSAP Selector different from 802.4 when both have 802.2 above them).
There is already a subnet-id included in the address.  Why mix the 
layers like this ?

Cheers,
Keith McCloghrie
ACC 
Columbia, Md.