Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!GREMLIN.NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!mrose
From: mrose@GREMLIN.NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: On the TCP/IP versus ISO "debate"
Message-ID: <8466.550427703@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 12:56:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: gremlin.8466.550427703
Posted: Thu Jun 11 12:56:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 10:23:03 EDT
References: <893@gvax.cs.cornell.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24

> To simplify dicussion, I think people should keep in mind that the ISO
> standards really don't specify any particular protocol and hence it doesn't
> make sense to talk about ISO versus TCP/IP.

    Uh?  What?  Wrong.

    ISO standards specify gobs of protocols.  Where do you want to
    start?

	ISO Transport Protocol (ISO 8073)
	ISO Session Protocol (ISO 8327)
	ISO Presentation Protocol (ISO 8823)
	ISO File Transfer, Access, and Management (ISO 8571)

    These are four.  I've got over fifty sitting back in my office, and
    I'm a very selective reader!  

    It makes a great deal of sense to talk about the ISO protocol suite
    vs. the TCP/IP protocol suite.  Although they both have layered
    architectures, they cut up the cake differently.  Further, the
    protocols they use diverge significantly once you start climbing to
    the higher layers.

/mtr