Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!intelca!amd!nguyen
From: nguyen@amd.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: OSI-model software
Message-ID: <4122@amd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jun-87 20:15:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: amd.4122
Posted: Fri Jun 19 20:15:45 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 01:02:11 EDT
References: <223@diab.UUCP> <233@idacrd.UUCP> <526@alliant.UUCP> <1214@botter.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: AMD, Santa Clara, California
Lines: 23
Xref: utgpu comp.dcom.lans:500 comp.protocols.misc:65
Summary: session layer

In article <1214@botter.cs.vu.nl>, ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
> In article <3002@pyramid.UUCP> sas@pyramid.UUCP (Scott Schoenthal) writes:
> >I believe that Andy knows what he is talking about and I would certainly
> >be interested if he would expand on the criticisms he mentions in his posting.
> 
> Ok.  For one thing, I think the session layer is ridiculous.  All
it really ...

	I don't think this comment is neccessarily constructive.  It
is too early to remove the session layer altogether from the ISO's
OSI.  The development for most upper layers protocols has not proved
maturity for everyone to accept as standards and NO ONE really know
what all layers have to be in the future.  There are ton of
different applications which can exist in all kinds of networks. 
Who knows?...
	I would rather have a null layer to by pass so I can
reconfigure the adjacent interfaces when the 'null' is no longer
necessarily empty later.  Some one proved that the session layer is
not null (such as IBM) must have a very good reason for it! As we
all know that most network layer implementation are null!!!. This
doesn't seem to hurt any body.

Quinn Nguyen