Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU!hedrick
From: hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP
Message-ID: <8703120441.AA28976@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 11-Mar-87 23:41:27 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.8703120441.AA28976
Posted: Wed Mar 11 23:41:27 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Mar-87 04:44:43 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Could you forward this back to Mike Corrigan:

My primary concern is that we don't push OSI so fast that we ruin its
long-term future.  TCP/IP proceeded the way it did because there was
no choice.  We had to get things out quickly because we needed the
facilities.  After all, it was originally claimed to be a research
vehicle.  OSI is supposed to be different.  It is supposed to be a
second-generation, production system, commerically supported, and all
that.  I have my own scepticism about this, but the point is that it
will accomplish absolutely nothing if we push people into it so fast
that we just duplicate the history of TCP/IP.  One thing that 4.1 and
4.2 make very clear is how hard it is to get improved software into
everybody's hands once large groups of people have started to use
something.  How many years will it have taken to get subnets in use?
(It still isn't finished.)  I understand the political pressure to
move ahead quickly with OSI, but I think that should be resisted.  I
think you should be writing specs for pilot implementations, but be
suggesting that all production work be done with TCP/IP.  The point is
that we should give OSI a chance to get some actual use in
well-controlled environments, and do lots of testing.  When something
is offered for general use, that something should be well-tested and
the robust.  The last thing we should be doing is pressuring vendors
to come out with products prematurely, as GOSIP seems sure to do.