PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP (03/13/87)
[This might be a redundant resend, but the copy I thought was going to the List came back with Message failed for the following: tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA: Forwarding error: Cannot find indirect file - No such device ------------ so I figured I'd better try again (maybe it's some kind of cosmic compensation for all the ones I thought I'd sent once that have shown up twice). NOTE, by the way, that I've expanded the contents, so even if you think you've seen it before, you haven't really.] [Mainly for Mike C.] Mike-- Glad to hear from you finally. Guess I can save the Government the postage on hardcopy after all. A couple of quick rejoinders: The reason why testing and performance stuff is not relevant to the ARPANET Suite but is relevant to GOSIP (and eventually to OSI--which, it must be realized, must be distinguished from GOSIP) is contained in the final sentence of 1.1, Background (of the GOSIP Draft): "By implementing open systems, the government expects to realize significant savings through reducing duplicate circuits and wiring, training, custom software, work stations, and custom hardware interfaces." Without testing and performance criteria, GOSIP (as it stands) would have to lead to INCREASED costs in "custom software"--to pay for the interoperability-bug fixes and the code tightening, that is. (On a somewhat different, but actually more threatening, tack, another way in which the promise of cost savings from "off-the-shelf"/"standard" software is betrayed lies in the fact that those [DoD] systems which will be using "Blacker" will have to have their X.25 implementations gutted and rehabbed, but let's save the details on that for a venue other than the TCP-IP "bulletin board"/mailing list.) Note, however, that when the ARPANET Suite was being adopted, nobody claimed the advantages of vendor support for it. GOSIP is claiming such advantages and demonstrably won't achieve them, both because of the need for further work on the current stuff and because of the need for further expenditure on the new stuff. A moving target is a moving target. (There's an irony in the fact that now that the ARPANET Suite is enjoying most of the advantages of vendor support after all, we're being asked to chuck it; but let it [the irony, not the Suite] pass.) Re automotive analogies: I'd be inclined to go with your recasting provided you make it a picture of an artist's conception of a "car of the future" model Lincoln vs. an actual MBG. I was trying to be polite by saying GOSIP was a stripped Renault, but if you insist on focusing on what OSI is eventually intended to be, we're in the realm of promises vs. realities. cheers, map P.S. Bravo on getting DARPA not to be considered a Government agency. Here's hoping you can do the same for DoD. (I.e., get it exempted from forced transition; after all, the ARPANET Suite is paid for and could be run in parallel with the OSI Suite when the OSI Suite is really here and really needed to interoperate with, e.g., NATO.) P.P.S. New metaphor: everybody's being told to run as hard as they can to get on this merry-go-round, and when they do they discover the brass ring dispenser's empty. (For those who don't remember such things, if you grabbed the brass ring you'd get a free ride.) -------