Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!AMES-NAS.ARPA!yamo
From: yamo@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Michael J. Yamasaki)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: On the TCP/IP versus ISO "debate"
Message-ID: <8706111658.AA14605@ames-nas.arpa>
Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 12:58:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames-nas.8706111658.AA14605
Posted: Thu Jun 11 12:58:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 10:29:13 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24

> From: ken@gvax.cs.cornell.edu  (Ken Birman)
> 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.  At the same time, there is
> a need to think about TCP/IP versus XNS, for example, and also to try and
> consolidate the many "standards" that are being created for session level
> protocols and for multicasting before things get out of hand.  I don't

Whew.  Perhaps, I'm confused.  In my world there is a thing called the ISO
Reference Model.  This is a thing which describes a seven layer "onion", uh,
er, encapsulated model in which the layers are theoretically interchangeable.
According to marketing literature in the industry, everything follows this
model - TCP/IP, Ethernet, SNA, DECNET, XNS, HYPERchannel...

There is this other thing called ISO Protocols which generally refers to a
collection of protocols some refered to by the CCITT numbers X.this and
X.that, some refered to NBS or IEEE numbers, some are even referred to by
such names as MAP or TOP or ISDN, but the real ISO protocols are 
ISO WXYZ numbers usually followed by caveats to their draft status or 
acceptance level, they also have names, like FTAM, TP4, TP0, and JTM.

All of the above are refered to as ISO.  Hmmm.

                                           -Yamo-