Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Idle chatter about reference models
Message-ID: <12353226727.40.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 14:41:07 EST
Article-I.D.: A.12353226727.40.PADLIPSKY
Posted: Tue Nov 24 14:41:07 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 07:28:11 EST
References: <20.NOV.1987.00:32:44.LAWS@RSRE>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26

Ooops.  More off form than I'd realized [/realised]:  Belatedly occurred to
me that the Layer, Layer, Who's Got the Layer context is a good one for
remembering that even if the ISORMites still think you've got to traverse
every layer every time, I never did (and they might not any more, if one
thinks things like "MAP" [which, of course, should be "MAPS" to begin with,
since it's a Suite, not just A protocol] are ISORMitic, since it blithely
skips a layer or two on its way).  So I'd refine my answer to the original
question to include something like "They sure seem to me to be operating
at L II WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING."  That might somehow subsume the notion
that a few people had that they're not really "in" the "stack"--or
perhaps subvert it, if not subsume it.  (And I guess it's also
worth pointing out that is assumes HMP, which I haven't looked at,
doesn't muddy the waters and operate over TCP connections, which
would almost make it have to be L III by my insistently non-rigorous
definitions.)
   fuzzy cheers, map
p.s. So as not to generate a new Glossary call, for the benefit of
those who haven't been around long enough, "ISORM" = ISO Reference
Model; ISORMite = follower of the ISORM who I feel is of dubious
worth (as opp. to ISORMist, which is one I feel to be sound in other
respects but wrong about the RM issue).  (The reason why I don't
use "OSI" is that I feel it begs the question; i.e., they may say
they're doing Open System Interconnection in their name, but are
they in their RM ... or their standard protocols?  Besides, I like the
sound of ISORM.)
te: 2ybo