atkins@nbires.UUCP.UUCP (07/15/86)
The Corporation for Open Systems (COS) is an excellent conduit for input to the
international standards bodies, but it is rather expensive. There is the
membership fee, plus the additional cost of participation. (It was said by
a COS member that COS is not looking for many members of little commitment,
but a lesser number of members of great commitment.)
There is another, perhaps less direct, input into the ISO/CCITT bodies.
NBS has an OSI Workshop which is producing a document entitled "Implementation
Agreements Among Implementors of OSI Protocols", which provides a somewhat
more precise interpretation of the various OSI standards, namely FTAM and
X.400 (in addition to the lower layers).
Production of significant portions of this document fall into the hands
of SIGs (Special Interest Groups). Participation in these SIGs is "limited"
to Implementors, Vendors, and Users of OSI protocols. As you can see, anyone
can take part in this process. Many active SIG members are also members
of CCITT and ISO, and can thus provide SIG input back into the
standards process.
NBS out of Gaithersburg, MD can provide information on these workshops and
SIG participation. Since these SIGs are populated by people doing the work,
many of the real problems are brought out into the open. I can speak from
experience, there is a high degree of commitment among the participants (in
the X.400 SIG at least).
So if you want "be part of the solution" rather than complain about the past,
here is an opportunity.
Brian Atkins ...{attunix, hao, allegra, ucbvax}!nbires!atkins
NBI Inc., P.O. Box 9001, Boulder CO 80301 (303) 444-5710sjl@amdahl.UUCP.UUCP (07/20/86)
In message <8607150327.AA07564@opus> nbires!atkins@ucbvax (Brian Atkins)
states that the Corporation for Open Systems (COS) is a good way to input
to the international standards bodies and mentioned the National Bureau of
Standards sponsored OSI Implementors Workshop as a less expensive alternative.
I appreciate him mentioning the OSI Implementors' Workshops because they have
been very important in moving OSI protocols from paper to practice. However,
it is important to understand that the main way of affecting standards
development is through the national standards committees. The main role of
the OSI Implementors' Workshops is to interpret existing standards, although
they will sometimes send liaison statements to standards groups. The role
of COS is not to represent COS members in standards bodies - members are
expected to send their own representatives. COS is intended to accelerate
the use and development of OSI and ISDN standards by developing commonly agreed
tests and providing a forum in which members are made aware of areas where
standards development needs to be accelerated.
When discussing COS and the OSI Implementors' Workshops it is useful to know
that they have a complementary relationship. COS intends to base the protocol
inplementation tests on the agreements reached in the Workshops. COS has
also sent the Workshops requests regarding the scheduling and priority of
the subjects discussed in the Workshops. A significant number of COS members
send representatives to the Workshops.
I both attend the OSI Implementors' Workshops and participate in COS activities.
As editor of a report produced by the pre-COS group (which led to COS being
formed) and as chair of the COS Architecture Committee I have consistently
recommended using the agreements reached at the Workshops. However, I do not
believe that COS and the OSI Implementors' Workshops currently represent
alternatives - they are doing different things. Neither is primarily a
method for input to the international standards bodies; this purpose is served
by ANSI approved committees or their equivalents in other countries.
Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl
[ The article above is not an official statement from any organization
in the known universe. ]