AUERBACH@CSL.SRI.COM.UUCP (03/13/87)
I think GOSIP is a good idea. I support it.
I have read GOSIP. I have read, indeed participated in, the NBS
Implementors' workshops. I have read, and believe I understand many,
if not most of the ISO and CCITT specifications. I have been
implementing one of the larger parts (X.400).
1. As for GOSIP mandating a universal government wide requirement: No
matter how one reads the express language of the document, does anyone
really think that agencies will abandon SNA? If SNA is an implicit
exception why not TCP, XNS, ... ?
2. The entire validity of the ISO protocol suite has been called into
question because some of the standards have changed as they progressed
through the standardization process. So what? Couldn't the same
reasoning be applied to the TCP suite because new RFC's are issued?
Yes, the ISO protocols and services are changing. Our own X.400
implementation will be, in part, invalidated due to changes which will
be "approved" next year.
And is ISO missing important parts? Yes. For instance its protocols
for handling routing between intermediate systems ("gateways" in TCP
terms) are still being developed. But can one really say that the
Internet has done a really good job of inter-gateway routing?
Does MAP/TOP contain some really incredibly dumb ideas? Yes. For
example, network level addresses (NSAPs) contain the PHYSICAL media
addresses (e.g. the 48 bit Ethernet address). This can become a
management nightmare, especially as the NSAP is a necessary component
of higher level addresses and will be stored by the various
application level directory services. But this oddity is NOT a
necessary part of ISO, only a temporary expedient reasonably adopted
by the MAP folks to defer inventing ARP and routing protocols. GOSIP
places a high priority on resolving this issue. And answers are
presently being considered, just read for example, RFC 995.
Does this mean that one should not "go ISO". Perhaps, if you are
measuring costs over a short term. But, if you take a long view, and
believe that ISO will, in fact, mature, then perhaps you ought to
invest now, grow-up with the technology, and avoid a conversion
expense.
3. The ISO protocols and services contain many, many good ideas. They
are in many respects superior to TCP services. There has been
criticism that the ISO work is bloated. I believe this is a valid
objection. But if you look at the Implementors' Agreements you will
find many portions of the full ISO specifications which have been
chopped off or limited. In addition, as I have worked with ISO my
viewpoint has changed. For example, at first I considered most of the
session synchronization functions to be questionable. Why should I
pay their cost when I am never going to use them? It turns out that
they are extremely useful. And, in practice, they don't seem to cost
much. I remember similar arguments being raised by assembler language
programmers against "the terrible waste of high level languages."
--karl-- Karl Auerbach
Epilogue Technology Corporation
-------bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU.UUCP (03/15/87)
>Does this mean that one should not "go ISO". Perhaps, if you are >measuring costs over a short term. But, if you take a long view, and >believe that ISO will, in fact, mature, then perhaps you ought to >invest now, grow-up with the technology, and avoid a conversion >expense. Fine, send me implementations for my SUNs, Encores, IBM/3090, Xerox and Symbolics Lisp machines, Vaxes (UNIX and VMS), ATT/3B (SYSV), IBM/PCs and Celerities. I am running some version of Internet protocols on all of those right now and it is critical to our campus' operation, research and educational business. I await the software or list of vendors from you. (maybe we should continue this argument on INFO-OSI which no doubt everyone reads on their X.400/OSI systems anyhow.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA (Marshall Rose) (03/15/87)
> (maybe we should continue this argument on INFO-OSI which no doubt > everyone reads on their X.400/OSI systems anyhow.) Nah. As has been pointed out in the past by Jon, these guys don't even use computers. Seriously, it's the stupidest catch-22 I've ever heard of: you can't start an electronic mail interest group for use by OSI zealots because either: - they don't have working X.400 systems - their systems don't talk to each other yet - they won't agree to use one organization's system for political reasons - they won't use the ARPAnet mailsystem (even though they probably all could get legitimate access) because even though it works it's not OSI and they can't use it 'cause that would be admitting that the ARPAnet stuff works You think I'm kidding, I'm not! This has happened to two or three times to my knowledge, and quite frankly I'm not even tied in that well to the OSI bunch. Of course the gag is that any of these four problems can be "fixed" easily: - you can now get X.400 systems on just about every machine you listed (true!) except perhaps the lisp engines - they could connect up to a common carrier - they could grow up - they could grow up and admit that, for the moment, TCP/IP and the ARPAnet works much better than OSI does. Croissants or donuts? I'd settle for hot water! /mtr ps: I'm out the door for the Monterey conference, so my responses to everyone's flames/cheers will be delayed by a few days...
tsuchiya@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG (Paul Tsuchiya) (03/16/87)
As per your comments about ISO people and their not using thier own technology for mailing lists. I won't speak for other ISO groups, but the group I'm in (ANSI X3S3.3, aka Transport and Network Layer, the folks that brought you IP (ISO) and TP4) does use the ARPANET and TCP/IP for its mailing. Granted, it's not X.400, but we are more interested in doing our jobs than showing off our own stuff. We are also more that happy to consider what is good (and what is not so good) in the DoD protocol world. By the way, our hot items right now are routing and other management functions, and YES we have looked at EGP and GGP etc., and YES we find some problems there. Also, we are meeting jointly from time to time (actually the first such time will be this April) with the INENG folks (yup, fuzzballs, swamps, etc.). If anyone is interested in getting in on our mailing list, send request to x3s33-interest@mitre-gateway.arpa. (To be honest, I have met many of the folks that give ISO a bad name. But there are SOME good people in standards). Paul Tsuchiya
PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) (03/16/87)
The way some people are attracted by picutres of cars-of-the-future makes me wonder whether there isn't a third term to the classic "a pessimist sees the glass as half empty, an optimist sees the glass as half full" routine: what kind of -ist thinks the glass runneth over? (Don't try "futurist," I've got too nasty a retort for that one in storage.) Getting back to what we're supposed to be talking about, however (i.e., the December, 1986 GOSIP Draft, NOT what OSI "will" be), let the record show that I don't even see a half-empty glass, I see a centipede named Achilles. (And I thank the sender of the Subj: msg for exposing a few extra heels.) cheers, map -------
gross@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG (Phill Gross) (03/16/87)
Marshall, I set up Arpanet mail access for several very appreciative folks on the ANSI X3S3.3 Network Layer Group. I also started a mailing list for their group, which they most definitely use. I've found X3S3.3 to be a very strong technical group which stays tuned into Internet developments, as they should be for their work. In fact, we have scheduled a joint day with S3.3 at the next DARPA Internet Engineering Task Force to discuss our common interests. It doesn't always need to be Us and Them. Phill Gross Mitre