Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!jcricket!sjs
From: sjs@jcricket.ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: Personal protocols: Where do they fit in the big picture?
Message-ID: <11222@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 24 Oct 88 17:59:04 GMT
References: <8810241351.AA29661@rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: sjs@ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer)
Organization: Bellcore
Lines: 31

Kees de Groot ( DEGROOT@HWALHW50) writes:
> Hamed Nassar wonders:
> 
> > People have been asking me this question.  Personal protocols (such as
> > kermit, xmodem, ymodem, <banana>modem, tlink, sealink, <banana>link,
> >cis a, cis b, cis <banana>, etc..etc.(where banana = any thing)), where
> >do they fit in the ISO reference model?
> 
> I would say they represent the application layer.

ISORM is just a model.  It is useful only to the extent that it helps
to clarify and organize understanding.  There is no sense
force-fitting things to this model when it only serves to confuse.

Knowing what "level" it is won't make it any more "standard" and it
won't make it interoperate any better either.

The protocols you mention have functionality assigned to several of
the ISO levels, and are layered differently.  So one answer is that
they don't fit at all.  When it comes down to using them with or over
"standard" protocols, you will have to make certain map-or-wrap
choices, though, and I suppose that you could say (if you must say it)
that the protocols are onel level higher than where you started to
"wrap" your protocol.  Nevertheless, I do not find this approach very
useful.

And anyway, it's the OSI reference model.

Speaking for myself,

Stan Switzer  sjs@ctt.bellcore.com