Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!houxa!mel1
From: mel1@houxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: OSI-model software
Message-ID: <510@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 21:26:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxa.510
Posted: Wed Jun 10 21:26:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 07:30:39 EDT
References: <223@diab.UUCP> <233@idacrd.UUCP> <526@alliant.UUCP> <1204@botter.cs.vu.nl>
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 35
Xref: utgpu comp.dcom.lans:473 comp.protocols.misc:46

Thanks to all who supplied comments to my questions on OSI vs
TCP/IP.  Unfortunately, none supplied answers.

When I refered to OSI vs TCP/IP, I was just using those labels for
the whole class of communications capability, not just the OSI
reference model vs the TCP/IP layers of the DOD network.

Several replys presented the theme that large corporations and
government agencys "supported", "endorsed", or "were committed to"
the OSI/ISO standards.  I don't know what that means.  In most cases
the organizations mentioned market products or install systems that
provide similar functions using quite different protocols.  Am I off
base in believing that those actions represent just the opposite of
support, endorsement, and commitment?

Several replys mentioned a variety of different protocols for some of
the ISO layers.  How does that fit the concept of a "standard"?  Is
this 1984 "double speak"?

I am just a user of already deployed interconnected networks that use
a truly fantastic variety of computer systems, hardware, and
connection media all based on TCP/IP (with rcp, rsh, rlogin, ftp,
telnet at the top for most UNIX users; and goodness knows what on the
bottom to actually connect in).  Isn't this whole stack already a
standard (with an existance proof)?  What is the replacement for all
this?  What does the replacement offer as an inducement to switch?

The TCP/IP people have a very active newsgroup discussing technical
details of the protocol.  I don't understand any of it, but find it
quite amazing that there is still growth, discussion, and willingness
to learn and change so many years into the life of the product.  Or,
is this just an indication that the wonders I see are held together
with bailing wire and string?  Does ISO/OSI have such an activity?

   Mel Haas  ,  odyssey!mel