MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (Mark Crispin) (03/08/87)
The single thing about the whole ISO controversy that irritates
me the most is the apparent glee in which the ISO groupies (no, I don't
mean you, Marshall!) are shoving this mess down our throats. I have
heard (and read) truly incredible statements; certain individuals are
evidentally getting quite a kick over the trauma the entire DoD Internet
will have to go through to migrate to ISO. This is apparently our
punishment for developing an internetwork without waiting for ISO to
come through.
A secondary source of annoyance to me is the lie that various
vendors are going to jump in and offer ISO support. The vendor of
TOPS-20 isn't going to implement it. Some poor schmuck (probably me)
will have to do it. I have this nasty hunch that my friends the
Multics hackers will be in the same situation. At least we'll have
guaranteed employment for a long time :-).
I thought the original intent of the ISO migration issue was to
migrate to ISO *only* when it is reasonable to do so. Any migration
now is going to cost the US taxpayers BIG bucks. In case the paper-
pushers haven't been looking lately, us hackers no longer sell our
services cheaply. Has ANYONE done an economic analysis of the impact
of an ISO migration on the DoD Internet?
-------Mills@UDEL.EDU (03/09/87)
Mark, The gloom spreading on this list about the apparent intent of ISO to overtake and destroy TCP/IP may be premature. When the IAB was briefed on GOSIP recently, it was understood that GOSIP would serve as the guide to selecting conforming ISO protocols, which eventually would be required of all new procurements, in much the same fashion as MAP/TOP. However, there was no explicit requirement that TCP/IP could not be operated and procured indefinately in addition to ISO protocols, just that every procurement must include ISO, even if it isn't actually used. From my own perspective, which I suspect is similar to that of many other players in this band, I am working as hard as I can to assist in the development of an Internet supporting both IP and ISO Connectionless datagrams. Thus, the system could be used for both protocol suites in much the same fashion that DDN Basic and Standard X.25 protocols are used now on ARPANET/MILNET. Then, if our much beloved protocols deserve to die in the long run, they can be accorded a funeral with honor. It is easy to ignite discourse on both sides of the ISO-TCP/IP issue, as seen recently in the newsprint both on and off this list. If in fact the wrong impression was gathered at the IAB briefing and something more sinister is afoot, it would be well to resolve the issue quickly, perhaps in the nature of a DDN Management Bulletin. Dave
PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP (03/09/87)
Dave-- You appear to have fallen into the same trap as Marshall Rose did (and as Dennis Perry did, as witness his recent msg to Marshall, copied to TCP-IP): what they say to you in a meeting is NOT binding; what they publish in a specification IS. See 1.4, Applicability (emphasis added): "GOSIP is to be USED by ALL Federal Government agencies..." and "FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, agencies are PERMITTED to procure alternative interoperble protocols...." Does that sound like "peaceful coexistence"? Rather than get all pedantic over how much havoc even an "i.e." instead of an "e.g." in a spec can cause, I'll settle for urging you to take whatever action you think appropriate to make the GOSIP spec come out with language supporting the position you heard rather than the position it currently takes. cheers, map -------