csg@pyramid.UUCP (06/10/87)
The group comp.protocols.iso seems to be trickling around the net. There have been running discussions on ISO in at least three groups (comp.protocols.misc, comp.mail.misc, comp.dcom.lans). Generally the contributions have been of very high quality. Seems like about time to make comp.protocols.iso a formal group. The charter would be: comp.protocols.iso Discussion of ISO, MAP, TOP, and CCITT protocols This would include the whole stack: X.25, X.213, X.214, X.215, X.400, and all the appropriate ISO and MAP permutations. Discussions on DARPA/ISO gateways could be cross-posted to comp.protocols.tcp-ip. I suspect that the group would be especially interesting to European sites. I see no reason to make the group moderated. Send comments to me, both pro and con. I am not interested in "votes" per se, since they are not very meaningful. I want to know what people are thinking: why or why not this should become a regular "comp" group, and whether or not it would be helpful to you in your work. I'll summarize on the net and to the backbone site admins. <csg>
mats@forbrk.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/25/87)
In article <15927@gatech.gatech.edu> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: >The group comp.std.internat has existed for over 2 years for precisely >the kind of discussion you are suggesting. The group has hardly been >used since its (rather noisy) creation. I'd suggest you use that for >ISO discussions. Gulp! Spaf seems to be chiding those of us who made all the noise about comp.std.internat, which, as I recall, he didn't see much need for. Well, we deserve it. I have tried a couple of times to stimulate some discussion, but haven't gotten much action. Well, I am still interested in the topics (my customers in France and elsewhere give me no choice), but I am almost resigned to not getting anything from the net. If anybody is interested in what is in System V, Release 3.1, I do have the source code sitting around. It isn't much, though - the one-page blurb AT&T sends out pretty much covers it. X/OPEN seems to have settled on HP's ideas as being the most useful; now we are trying to track down whether HP is actually pushing a product to promote as a standard, or whether it is all internal (i.e., available inside HP products only). Does anybody have further information? Re: comp.protocols.iso - ISO provides standards for lots of things; in the context it was mentioned, the potential group should perhaps be called comp.protocols.osi. I don't fully agree that comp.std.internat should be used for those discussions, but since *we* aren't using it.... Mats Wichmann