Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!sas
From: sas@pyramid.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: OSI-model software (long ...)
Message-ID: <2923@pyramid.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Jun-87 16:48:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyramid.2923
Posted: Sun Jun  7 16:48:09 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jun-87 23:47:27 EDT
References: <223@diab.UUCP> <233@idacrd.UUCP> <526@alliant.UUCP> <19265@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <492@houxa.UUCP>
Reply-To: sas@pyramid.UUCP (Scott Schoenthal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 60
Xref: utgpu comp.dcom.lans:455 comp.protocols.misc:32

In article <492@houxa.UUCP> mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes:
>What does ISO offer that TCP/IP doesn't?  Is it significantly faster?
>I can't think of any other measure that needs improving.

The following is my opinion:

The ISO stack, in its current state, offers significantly less functionality
than TCP/IP.  In particular, the virtual terminal protocol is not yet
completed.  What ISO does propose to offer (when completed) is:

	(1)	More heterogeneity via a more "complete" series of
		options to the basic functions.

	(2)	A solidification of the layering approach to communications
		protocols which would provide more intermingling
		of various services within a class of functionality without
		modification to the higher layers.  E.g., the ability to run
		a lean transport on top of a connection-oriented service
		(X.25) versus a more substantial transport on top of
		connectionless services (802.3).
	
	(3)	A suite of protocols not developed by the "bomb-crazed"
		American military.  Not that I want to bring politics
		into the picture but, like it or not, we're talking
		*international* standards.  The Europeans are very
		sensitive about the protocols which run over the
		PTT networks.  Anyone whose gone through the ordeal of
		an X.25 certification can attest to this.  An international
		standard not controlled by any one country (in fact one in
		which each country can select the options (see (2)) it
		prefers) would seem to be an ideal solution.
>
>Is there a war going on?  TCP/IP vs ISO?  Who is on which side?  Why?

More opinion:

I'm not sure I'd classify what appears to be taking place as a war.  It
seems to be more of a necessary sanity check on what's been produced by
the standards bodies.  I'm all for standards and computers that talk to
each other.  However, I'd like this to happen in a reasonably fast and
(from the host-standpoint) efficient manner.  Beyond the discussion over
incompleteness of the standards, there is a question of performance of
ISO implementations.  One of the more visible groups raising these questions
is the FDDI group.  If you'll recall, FDDI is a 100 Mbit/sec token bus
standard being developed by a subcomittee of ANSI.  An important question
is what happens when I suddenly improbe my bandwidth (in this case, an
order of magnitude) but my software only allows me to use a small portion.

In favor of ISO are the European PTTs and academic networks, the MAP/TOP
group, NBS and Corporation for Open Systems (COS), and the US Government
via the GOSIP spec.  It also appears that the ARPAnet may migrate to
ISO in an undetermined timeframe.

>
>   Mel Haas  ,  odyssey!mel

sas
----
Scott Schoenthal		        Pyramid Technology Corp.
pyramid!sas				Mountain View, California