Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CS.UCL.AC.UK!jon From: jon@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Jon Crowcroft) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Does TCP/IP "comform" to ISO/OSI? Message-ID: <8809101828.AA08806@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 10 Sep 88 16:25:59 GMT References: <12429004411.28.LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 45 Dan, hear hear here - lets here a technical discussion - we are computer *scientists* are'nt we... i dont understand why both iso7498 fans and rfc79? fans are so partisan, rather than regarding both worlds as partial solutions to be implemented/converged to by vendors, whatever, and getting on with how we could both do better next time (being a scientist by training, i dont believe in 'getting it right' - see Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge, pp1 to about 800). Just how is TP4 'broken' (apart from unreliable close, and packet mode rather than byte stream, and a reference number rather than ports). So whats wrong with CLNP, cept maybe it mandates a few things that weren't mandated in IP/ICMP. So whats so good about everyone and their brother building wrong transaction protocols over UDP because they claim TCP costs too much, doesnt do transactions etc etc etc You guys in the US shouldnt have to worry over the X.25 alternative, but in Europe, we gonna have hi-speed ISDN to map 7498 into - now theres a problem to think about, do we want TP4/CLNP over a reliable 640 Mbps bit pipe to carry video and bronze-medallion reference models, or X25 pkt and LLC levels, or might we want to listen to what the Dave Clarks and Cheritons of the world are messing with... i guess marshall is right that ISO represents the Big picture, but its a Cecil B. de Mille picture that lasts about 20 years, except for being remembered by a few old dears at xmas - where's the Citezen Kane of protocol architectures (ow, mixed metaphors arent part of physics training) sorry to rant on, i hate working on saturdays jon