Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:272 comp.protocols.misc:554 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:6811 comp.std.internat:477 comp.lang.postscript:1941 comp.windows.news:1268
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!unido!nixctc!pete@relay.nixctc.de
From: pete@relay.nixctc.de (Pete Delaney)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.protocols.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.std.internat,comp.lang.postscript,comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: TCP/IP versus OSI
Keywords: OSI,NetWorkMangement,MMS,ASN1,DarthVader,Postscript,NeWS
Message-ID: <1042@nixctc.DE>
Date: 15 Apr 89 16:36:07 GMT
References: <2145@cpoint.UUCP>
Sender: news@nixctc.DE
Lines: 22

Come on guys, where is the Followup to Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo's
paper " Round 2 in the great TCP/IP versus OSI Debate".  I expected
a bit more than everyone being quite.  Is Darth Vader watching or
something?  I've been working on OSI for a few years and it seems
that most of what Joachin is presenting is right.  I'm a little
disapointed in explanations about why this obsurdity has developed
the way it has.  I am sure a lot of developers love OSI over arpanet,
I'd like to here their story. Also, it might be nice to hear why 
arpnet is migrating to OSI; do the arpa developers really like ASN1
more than postscript?  I found programing in ASN1 with the NBS meta
compiler very time consuming.  What about using postscript instead of
ASN1 for network management and Manufactoring Messageing? Is it really
that important to check, cross-check, and then tripple-check as
is done in OSI and ASN1.  Can't we just assume like Joachim points out
that the connection above transport is reliable and then send programs
like postscript to due what we want?  


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