Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!joey
From: joey@geaclib.UUCP (Joey De Wiele)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: ISO RPC DP
Summary: RPC Protocol : It ain't ROSE...
Message-ID: <3606@geaclib.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 89 19:38:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: geaclib.3606
References: <733@pyuxe.UUCP> <5560012@hpindda.HP.COM>
Organization: GEAC Computers, Toronto, CANADA
Lines: 28

In article <5560012@hpindda.HP.COM>, khiem@hpindda.HP.COM (Khiem Ho) writes:
>> / hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / ald1@pyuxe.UUCP (Alan L Dickman) /  8:25 am  Jan 20, 1989 /
>> Can anyone tell me the status of of ISO DP 10154 (?)
>> which is the draft proposal for a Remote Procedure
>> Call mechanism.  Was it adopted?
> 
> The current standards on ROSE are:
>    CCITT X.219 and X.229
>    ISO   9072-1 and 9072-2
> 
> I know for sure CCITT already approved them last Oct.
> I don't know the results of ISO ballots (six month). 
> And the two have (almost) identical text.
> 
> Khiem Ho
> Hewlett-Packard 

Someone at ISO is doing work on a specific Remote Procedure Call
standard. This standard is NOT the ROSE standards referenced by Mr. HO.

I believe the work is being driven by ECMA, but I am not sure. I know
nothing of the standards beyond vague comments I heard at the SC 21
plenaryin Sydney. It sounds like RPC is similar in concept to ROSE, but
I can't say for sure.

ISO wouldn't be ISO unless work was replicated in different groups.

Joey