Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!TWG.COM!mrose
From: mrose@TWG.COM (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Does TCP/IP "comform" to ISO/OSI?
Message-ID: <13887.589071350@twg.com>
Date: 31 Aug 88 22:55:50 GMT
References: <1301@thumper.bellcore.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

Phil, you make me sad.  But now I will make you angry!

Neither you nor I are unbiased observers.  In as much as you have given
your slanted view (i.e., no need for session, presentation should be
application-specific, etc.), I might as well give my slanted views.

The problem with you TCP/IP extremists is that you only have one tool, a
hammer.  It's a nice stainless steel hammer which gets the job done
quite handily.  But it is still a hammer.  As such, every problem to you
guys looks like a nail.  (In fairness, OSI extremists are the same way).
Although at the lower layers, OSI (levels 3&4) is still quite silly at times;
at the upper layers, I think the TCP/IP community could learn quite a
few things.  Some of which you might even find useful.

I won't bother launching into an assault on TCP/IP at this point, for
two reasons: 1) you wouldn't appreciate it, and 2) I'm using it to get
things done today.

The problem is that you snipe at the parts you don't like, rather than
trying to appreciate the entire picture.  On the whole, OSI has a lot of
good points going for it, even though some of the actual parts are
pretty lousy.

/mtr