Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:251 comp.std.internat:473 comp.dcom.lans:2563 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:6535
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!unido!nixctc!sun360.Online.Nixdorf.De!pete
From: pete@sun360.Online.Nixdorf.De (pete delany)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.std.internat,comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Layer Encapsulation in OSI
Message-ID: <1019@nixctc.DE>
Date: 18 Mar 89 10:27:43 GMT
References: <2028@cpoint.UUCP> <2016@cpoint.UUCP>
Sender: news@nixctc.DE
Lines: 20


In article <2028@cpoint.UUCP>, martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joacim Martillo) writes:
> Path: nixctc!unido!mcvax!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!encore!cloud9!jjmhome!cpoint!martillo
> From: martillo@cpoint.U> > 
> I see this situation all the time.  Everytime someone wants to
> incorporate some new idea into OSI which actually give some reason to
> switch from TCP/IP to OSI, it gets shot down at the committee level. 
> Now I understand why the best standards are those which were ad hoc
> standards first, and only much later standardized by the international
> committees.  Any comments?

I've been hacking on OSI code for the past few years, and I also doubt
the value of spending a lot of money trying to get people to accept these
standards dictated by the central committees.  Clearly, the problem is 
with the 'authorities' participating in the market.

Pete Delaney - Nixdorf UCC	| pete@NIXCTC.DE		Prefered Addr
Loffel Strasse 3		| pyramid!nixctc!pete		UUCP from Calf
7000 Stuttgart 70		| pete@RELAY.HUJI.AC.IL		Backup Address
West Germany			| Phone: +49 (711) 7685-128