Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!munnari!kre
From: kre@munnari.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.misc,comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: OSI-model software
Message-ID: <1680@munnari.oz>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 10:38:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: munnari.1680
Posted: Wed Jun 10 10:38:59 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jun-87 06:01:13 EDT
References: <223@diab.UUCP> <233@idacrd.UUCP> <526@alliant.UUCP> <1724@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 46
Keywords: iso, tcp-ip, internetworking
Xref: utgpu comp.dcom.lans:482 comp.protocols.misc:51 junk:5261

In article <1724@ames.UUCP>, lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
> 1) I would like to move this discussion to comp.protocols.iso

Be careful here, comp.protocols.iso is an internet group (a cheap
way of transporting the mailing list over the internet), it doesn't
reach out into most of usenet.  It probably should.  Since usenet
is all about networking, and iso is standardising exactly that,
this is one topic that all usenet should be able to see.

> Until there is a network virtual terminal specification, for example,
> the rest of ISO is of limited utility.

You're right, that one is lagging behind (and started late), probably
largely because X.29 (as revolting as it is) was seen as serving
adequately enough (which it doesn't outside the x.25 world).

> The solution, from my perspective, is for the iso camp to mature
> sufficiently that technical considerations override the (current) political
> considerations.

No, this is all backwards, strange as it may seem.  The whole purpose
of standardisation is for political considerations to override the
technical ones.  And no, I'm not being cynical.  The absolute essential
for a standard is for everyone to agree with it, and getting everyone
to agree means lots of compromises.  (Just consider Sun with NeWS and X).

There's absolutely no hope of a technically perfect standard, especially
not in any area where there's any dispute about what is perfect.

This isn't to say that the standards bodies don't aim to formulate a
standard as technically good as they can, but that *must* come second
to getting the necessary agreements, from the whole world.

> Why isn't there anything like the RFC mechanism for iso?

There is: they're the working papers, draft standards, etc.
What they're not is free.  Nor are they even cheap.  However
you can easily obtain copies (contact ANSI in the US).  The
documentation isn't free, as this is how ISO largely finances
its activities .. ie: selling those bits of paper largely
pays for the secretarial work that goes into creating them
(most of the cost of the technical work is contributed by the
members of the working groups, or their employers, but I believe
that some of this comes from ISO funds as well).

Robert Elz