Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ames!husc6!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Does TCP/IP "comform" to ISO/OSI?
Summary: How about a new RM?
Message-ID: <24800@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 9 Sep 88 15:12:30 GMT
References: <4782.589685879@twg.com> <12429004411.28.LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Boston Univ. Information Tech. Dept.
Lines: 26

In article <12429004411.28.LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU> LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU (Dan Lynch) writes:
>Hey, Michael and Marshall, I'd love to see you two duke it out (Or violently
>agree) on the Layer 5-7 "in ain't the same as out" issue that surfaced in
>the recent messages.  
>
>Dan
>-------

	I agree with Dan.  If map and mtr could turn this discussion
around and try to find some common ground and consensus between their
two opposing viewpoints, I wonder if they wouldn't have the start of a
new model that might take this discourse up to another plateau?

	The only thing good about the ISORM, or the TCP/IP model, is
that it gives us a map (no pun :-) and a glossary for conversing about
protocols.  Neither model seems entirely adequate.  Network
management, for example, seems to have broken both models.  [no
flames, please].  Thankfully, that doesn't stop the implementors or
protocol-builders.

	I think the considerable expertise of Padlipsky, Rose, Karn,
et al could make some progress along these lines and transform this
discussion from a memorable summer diversion into the beginning of
something new.  How about it?  We need some common ground.

	[Let's see; where did I put my Kevlar flak jacket and fire
extinguisher?]