Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!deervax.concordia.ca!carlos
From: carlos@deervax.concordia.ca (Carlos Perez)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RCP and LOTOS
Message-ID: <1591*carlos@deervax.concordia.ca>
Date: 12 Dec 88 16:38:00 GMT
References: <8812102137.AA20744@com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27


Thank you for your comments [I'm re-posting them to tcp-ip because
I am looking for more opinions on this subject]: 

>>I'm not sure what you mean by RPC, but if you mean "Sun RPC" you can
>>just run XDR and RPC atop ISO, given a "transport" implementation for
>>it, so I don't see that switching to ASN.1 from XDR helps - in any
>>*practical* sense - migration.  (It may make some purist happier, but
>>they might be even happier if you run some ISO-blessed RPC scheme....)

It is my understanding that there are several variations of RPC, 
thus their interfaces (on the applications side and on the transport
side) should be standardized for the sake of interoperability (this is
my particular opinion). What I wonder is how these interfaces should 
be efficiently (openly) defined and if it is worth at all defining them.
First, I would like  to understand how a standard RPC would look like and
then, see how this 'pseudo-standard' would relate to OSI, more for academic 
purposes than for practical ones (although interoperability is a
practical aspect).

-_-_-_
Carlos Perez, Systems Programmer                   
Concordia University                             
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West                    
Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8                        
(514) 848-3107                                  
E-mail: carlos@deervax.concordia.ca