kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) (06/06/90)
Hi... I would like to propose to create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols. migrate.to.iso" in order to discuss about migration from old TCP/IP technology to new OSI technology. I've been working on TCP/IP almost 10 years now. I am so tired of it. Since the U.S. Government is getting so poor, they cannot afford to change their environments so quickly. Only thing they can think of "Security, security !!", I guess. I had a chance to go back to Korea about a year ago. Not many people wanted to talk about TCP/IP. They think it is now pretty old technology. Wealthy countries like Korea, Japan, they quickly threw out the old TCP/IP technology. I know Korea has sucked all of the highest technologies from all over the world. Anyhow, I would like to propose to create such a new newsgroup. Thanx. Kwang Sung Informix Software, Inc. 4100 Bohannon Dr. Menlo Park, CA 94025 415 / 926 - 6758 (O) UUCP: ...!uunet!infmx!kwang ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The above opinion was nothing to do with my employer.
mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) (06/06/90)
I think you've missed April Fools' Day by about 2 months and 4 days! But, if you were serious, then you are probably 9 years, 9 months, and 26 days premature in sending your message. The Internet suite of protocols is only now coming into its own. This "old" technology is quite vibrant and has a lot of life flowing into it. It is also the only thing that works today across multiple vendor lines. Further, when meaningful comparisons can be made, it also seems to be best technology around, as evidenced by its wide deployment and ever-maturing market. If Korea and Japan really have thrown out TCP/IP (which I don't believe for a second), then they've made a strategic error. Certainly in Europe, the bastion of OSI, they've determined that if you want to actually do networking, as opposed to talk about networking, then you do it with TCP/IP. I know of several places in Europe where the phrase "IP router" is utterred with reverence and occasionally awe! Although I'm hopeful that someday OSI might produce competitive technologies, I'm not going to hold my breath. It is not enough to do something different, you must do it better, a lot better. Although service for service, the OSI effort is more ambitious than the Internet approach, the OSI pseudo-products on the market are, by and large, much less functional and robust than their Internet competitors. It is not enough to have a standard for multi-media message handling (X.400), you must implement it fully and ubiqiutously in order to displace a omnipresent memo-based system (RFC822). And yet, when I survey the X.400 offerings on the market, I still find many lacking features found in many of today's RFC822 implementations, and at prices that are truly astounding. The same is true, sadly, for FTAM, and VT. (And this really isn't the fault of the vendors! OSI technology is extraordinarly expensive to produce in terms of time and people.) I have high hopes for OSI Directory Services (X.500), since there really isn't a competitor in the Internet suite; but, I fear that political problems will make a global Directory improbable. If you are interested in transition technology, there have been papers and books printed on this subject for nearly a decade (you might start with Green's paper on "Protocol Conversion" in IEEE Trans. on Comm., March, 1986). There are also some things specific to Internet->OSI transition, for example one popular book on OSI devotes about 90 pages to the topic. /mtr
kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) (06/07/90)
>From: mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) wrote: >I think you've missed April Fools' Day by about 2 months and 4 days! >But, if you were serious, then you are probably 9 years, 9 months, and >26 days premature in sending your message. Yes. I am so serious. We need to create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols. migrate.to.iso". For instance, recently I've designed and implemented RDA (ISO/IEC DP 9579-1) on top of SunLink OSI and TCP/IP with RFC 1006 on my SPARCstation 1. Actually, I've embedded it into ISODE 6.0. However, a lot of customers wanted to put it on top of lpp (RFC 1085). I have a trouble with finding those specific bridges between RFC 1085 and "pure" OSI stack. If we create those new newsgroup, then we can have an info on migration from "old" TCP/IP technology, SNA, or other protocols to "new" OSI technology. As far as I know, application gateways, transport gateways, network tunnels, protocol tunnels, etc are the only primitive methods for the migration. Actual environment needs higher technology. >The Internet suite of protocols is only now coming into its own. This >"old" technology is quite vibrant and has a lot of life flowing into it. >It is also the only thing that works today across multiple vendor lines. >Further, when meaningful comparisons can be made, it also seems to be >best technology around, as evidenced by its wide deployment and ever-maturing >market. I don't quite agree with it. As I've explained, since the U.S. Government is getting poorer, they can not afford to replace the "old" technology. Moreover, they don't want have an error especially under tactical environments. That's why TCP/IP technology is now getting matured. But I don't think it is "best" technology. I would call it "old" technology. About 1983, I had a chance to design and implement DoD protocols with MIL STD for the U.S. Government. I've found a whole bunch of errors on MIL STD specs. I wrote a letter to DCA about those errors. Still 1990, they are using the same MIL STD specs. Do you know why ?? Because they don't have enough money to revise it. Actually, MIL STD were written by UNISYS under some contract. >If Korea and Japan really have thrown out TCP/IP (which I don't believe >for a second), then they've made a strategic error. Certainly in >Europe, the bastion of OSI, they've determined that if you want to >actually do networking, as opposed to talk about networking, then you do >it with TCP/IP. I know of several places in Europe where the phrase >"IP router" is utterred with reverence and occasionally awe! Marshall Rose... If you are saying same words to Korea or Japan Government/Industries/ Universities, they are going to laugh. About a year ago, when I had a chance to go back to Korea, I was invited from several institutions and Korea Government Organizations which are dealing with the highest technologies in the world. Not many people wanted to talk about TCP/IP. They were already migrated to OSI world. In these days, I am envolved with the projects with Euroupe. That's why I was interested in U.K. GOSIP. They are interested in U.S. "old" TCP/IP technology, but I don't think they will change their existing systems for it. >Although I'm hopeful that someday OSI might produce competitive >technologies, I'm not going to hold my breath. It is not enough to do >something different, you must do it better, a lot better. Although >service for service, the OSI effort is more ambitious than the Internet >approach, the OSI pseudo-products on the market are, by and large, much >less functional and robust than their Internet competitors. It is not >enough to have a standard for multi-media message handling (X.400), you >must implement it fully and ubiqiutously in order to displace a >omnipresent memo-based system (RFC822). And yet, when I survey the >X.400 offerings on the market, I still find many lacking features found >in many of today's RFC822 implementations, and at prices that are truly >astounding. The same is true, sadly, for FTAM, and VT. (And this >really isn't the fault of the vendors! OSI technology is extraordinarly >expensive to produce in terms of time and people.) I have high hopes >for OSI Directory Services (X.500), since there really isn't a >competitor in the Internet suite; but, I fear that political problems >will make a global Directory improbable. Some of your statements I agree. Evenif OSI technologies are still premature, I don't see 10 years. It's slow sometimes, but the whole world is rapidly moving into one OSI world. >If you are interested in transition technology, there have been papers >and books printed on this subject for nearly a decade (you might start >with Green's paper on "Protocol Conversion" in IEEE Trans. on Comm., >March, 1986). There are also some things specific to Internet->OSI >transition, for example one popular book on OSI devotes about 90 pages >to the topic. Thank you for the good reference. Actually, I've enjoyed your "The Open Book" and ISODE 6.0 source codes more. Again, I think we need to create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso" Thanx. Kwang Sung Informix Software, Inc. 4100 Bohannon Dr. Menlo Park, CA 94025 415 / 926 - 6758 (O) UUCP: ...!uunet!infmx!kwang ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: The above opinion was nothing to do with my employer.
keith@excelan.COM (Keith Brown) (06/07/90)
]I've been working on TCP/IP almost 10 years now. I am ]so tired of it. Since the U.S. Government is getting so poor, they cannot ]afford to change their environments so quickly. Only thing they can think of ]"Security, security !!", I guess. ] ] I had a chance to go back to Korea about a year ago. Not many people ]wanted to talk about TCP/IP. They think it is now pretty old technology. ]Wealthy countries like Korea, Japan, they quickly threw out the old TCP/IP ]technology. I know Korea has sucked all of the highest technologies from all ]over the world. I would just like to point out that marker pens should only be used for writing on whiteboards, not for sniffing..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Brown Phone: (408) 473 8308 Novell San Jose Development Centre Fax: (408) 433 0775 San Jose, California 95131 Net: keith@novell.COM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (06/07/90)
In article <4431@infmx.UUCP>, kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes: > If you are saying same words to Korea or Japan Government/Industries/ > Universities, they are going to laugh. They haven't so far. TCP/IP is used by many Japanese universities and industry leaders for the reason that it works and is available right now. They may be doing research into OSI and MAP/TOP, but they still use TCP/IP to get their work done. > I was invited from several institutions and Korea > Government Organizations which are dealing with the highest technologies in > the world. Not many people wanted to talk about TCP/IP. They were already > migrated to OSI world. If they have installed and operational OSI networks, with similar scale, performance, and quality of service as U.S. and European TCP/IP networks, then it's time I scheduled a trip to Korea to see them. I wonder how they managed it while the ISO is still arguing with itself... > It's slow sometimes, but the whole world is rapidly moving into one OSI > world. It doesn't look that way from what I've seen. My company is a TCP/IP vendor. The fastest growing part of our market is overseas--institutions all over the world are installing and expanding TCP/IP networks, sometimes replacing attempts to use OSI. OSI has some very important advantages over TCP/IP, but it is still quite immature technology, and I think that it's a little early to plan large-scale migration from TCP/IP. For discussion, though, you can always use 'comp.protocols.iso', which can probably handle the volume for a while... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "If we don't succeed, then we run the risk of failure." -- Dan Quayle
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/08/90)
In article <4431@infmx.UUCP> kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes:
If you are saying same words to Korea or Japan Government/Industries/
Universities, they are going to laugh.
I just went into 'irc' (Interactive Relay Chat), and did a '/links' command.
The hosts that are linked into irc are listed below. Not only is Europe
well represented, so is Japan. Perhaps you're right about OSI, but when
people want to internetwork today, they get on the Internet.
noc.belwue.de (BELWUE (Stuttgart), West Germany)
uni-ulm.de ([titania.mathematik.uni-ulm.de] University of Ulm,)
uni-kl.de ([popper.informatik.uni-kl.de] [131.246.8.80]Univer)
rwth-aachen.de ([cip-s01.informatik.rwth-aachen.de] [192.35.229.11)
ira.uka.de ([iraun1.ira.uka.de] University of Karlsruhe, FRG)
zephyr.cair.du.edu (University of Denver's International Server)
s.ms.uky.edu (University of Kentucky)
xanth.cs.odu.edu (Magical land of Xanth Server)
suna7.cs.uiuc.edu (University of Illinois at Urbana Backup)
sunb7.cs.uiuc.edu (University of Illinois at Urbana Backup)
garfield.mit.edu (MIT Project Athena, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)
diamond.bbn.com (The Server at the End of the World)
chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 2.4)
wharfin.wpi.edu (WPI TEST server running IRC II v2.4.1)
bucse.bu.edu (Boston University, Boston, MA 2.4.1)
eniac.seas.upenn.edu (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA)
beach.cis.ufl.edu (University of Florida Server)
slopoke.mlb.semi.harris.com (Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL, US
fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Rijks Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands)
assari.tut.fi (Tampere University of Technology, Finland)
otax.tky.hut.fi (Student Body of Helsinki University of Technology)
cs.hut.fi ([sauna.hut.fi] Helsinki University of Technology, )
lut.fi (Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland)
tolsun.oulu.fi (Experimental IRC Server at University of Oulu, Fin)
kreeta.helsinki.fi (University of Helsinki, Finland <IRC 2.4.1>)
joyx.joensuu.fi ([128.214.14.2] University of Joensuu, Finland)
jyu.fi (University of Jyvaskyla, Finland)
tel4.tel.vtt.fi ([130.188.12.4] VTT--Technical Research Centre of F)
nada.kth.se ([130.237.222.50] Royal Institute of Technology, St)
laila.lysator.liu.se (Lysator CC at Link|ping University, Sweden)
flute.er.sintef.no (ELAB-RUNIT, U. of Trondheim, Norway <2.2msa.4>)
solan4.solan.unit.no (Norwegian Institute of Tech., Trondheim N)
svarte.uio.no (University of Oslo, Norway <2.4>)
adagio.fy.chalmers.se ([129.16.6.200] Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola)
shai.sics.se ([192.16.123.226] Swedish Institute of Computer Sci)
lso.win.tue.nl (Experimental IRC-Server, Eindhoven, Holland)
slice.ooc.uva.nl ([192.42.115.1] Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Ne
giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ohio State University, Columbus)
schubert.psu.edu (Penn State NeXTlab IRC server)
galileo.apo.nmsu.edu (Apache Point Obs.)
cwns1.INS.CWRU.Edu (CWRU IRC Server)
wpi.edu ([wpi.WPI.EDU] WPI's Server (others are cheap imita)
vela.acs.oakland.edu (Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA)
washington.andrew.cmu.edu (A server named George(2.4))
unix.cis.pitt.edu (University of Pittsburgh Server)
astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (University of Virginia 2.4)
group-w.uchicago.edu (University of Chicago - Astro)
kentmath.math-cs.kent.edu ([kentmath.kent.edu] Computer Science Department, K)
oddjob.uchicago.edu (University of Chicago - Astro)
ux.acs.umn.edu (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN)
medusa.cs.purdue.edu (Chief's Server)
uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (University of Illinois at Urbana (V2.4))
uni-erlangen.de ([faui43.informatik.uni-erlangen.de] Uni Erlangen)
guug.de ([192.48.231.3] GUUG Muenchen,West-Germany)
TU-Muenchen.de ([sunsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de] TU Munich, )
tavi.rice.edu (Rice University)
iroquois.utdallas.edu ([129.110.10.12] Univ. of Texas at Dallas)
pkg.mcc.com ([128.62.40.1] Group Talisman server at MCC, Austin)
taltta.hut.fi (Helsinki University of Technology)
GRASP.CIS.UPENN.EDU (U of Penna. TiTo Server, Philadelphia, PA, USA)
emil.csd.uu.se (CS Dept., Uppsala Univ., Sweden <2.4.1>)
mizar.docs.uu.se (Uppsala University Server (DoCS))
uceng.uc.edu (University of Cincinnati Primary Server 2.4)
byron.u.washington.edu (University of Washington Server)
hayes.fai.alaska.edu (University of Alaska Fairbanks)
cpac.washington.edu ([bailey.cpac.washington.edu] UW IRC Server V2.2PL1)
unicorn.wwu.edu (WWU Fantasy Server)
hammer.me.utoronto.ca (UofToronto Server)
galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Univ of Rochester, Department of Electrical Engine)
sirius.ctr.columbia.edu ([128.59.64.60] Columbia University CTR, New York C)
NeXT210.NOdak.edu (You Can't Find It In the Atlas)
ronin.us.cc.umich.edu (U. of Michigan ITD Consulting IRC Server)
srvr1.engin.umich.edu (University of Michigan, CAEN IRC Server, Ann Arbor)
oak2.math.ucla.edu (UCLA Mathter and Servant)
astemgw.astem.or.jp (ASTEM Research Institute, Kyoto, JAPAN)
cnam.cnam.fr (Centre National des Arts et Metiers v2.2PL, Paris,)
monu6.cc.monash.edu.au ([130.194.32.106] Monash University, Australia)
MED.STANFORD.EDU (Stanford Medical School Information Systems Group)
hercules.csl.sri.com (SRI Computer Science Lab, Menlo Park, CA USA)
ucscb.UCSC.EDU (University of California at Santa Cruz, IRC 2.4)
lucid.com (Menlo Park, California, USA)
utsun.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.7.250] University of Tokyo, Japan <2.4>)
choshi.kaba.or.jp ([choshi] Kyoto Artificial Brain Associates, Kyoto,)
kimura4.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp ([130.54.30.164] Kyoto University, Japan <2.4>)
jerry.tom.astem.or.jp ([133.18.192.1] Kyoto Junction Server, ASTEM, Kyoto)
eris.Berkeley.EDU (Berkeley Ultra-Hoopy Test Server)
betwixt.cs.caltech.edu ((Caltech Server) <irc2.4>)
ucselx.sdsu.edu (San Diego State University, CA USA)
paris.ics.uci.edu (University of California, Irvine <2.4PL0>)
ccnext.ucsf.edu (UCSF IRC Server)
cssun1.cs.indiana.edu (Indiana University Test Server)
iucs.cs.indiana.edu (Indiana University Test Server)
silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Indiana University Test Server)
irc.andrew.cmu.edu ([FAIRHOPE.ANDREW.CMU.EDU] Generic Brand CMU IRC
spot.colorado.edu (University of Colorado, Boulder)
hamblin.byu.edu (BYU Math Dept)
cie.uoregon.edu (The Campus Information Exchange's IRC Server)
uhura.cc.rochester.edu (University of Rochester - Rochester, NY)
netserv2.its.rpi.edu (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY)
sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Clarkson, Potsdam, NY 13676)
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemstorben@FORALIE.ICS.HAWAII.EDU (Torben Nielsen) (06/10/90)
These statements about the glorious OSI environment in Korea sound pretty silly. KAIST has just established a 56Kbps link to the Internet. And they at least claim to be building a larger IP network. Also, I just finished installing the *fourth* 64Kbps link to Tokyo. All of them running IP. No doubt there's interest in OSI migration in both Japan and Korea. But - and this is my personal impression - neither is much further along that path than we are. Unless you count their greater reliance on X.25 and take that as a plus..... Australia and New Zealand have extensive IP networks too. They're simply being pragmatic. Actually, the Australian network (AARN) is about the most impressive accomplishment in IP network construction I can think of. They connected just about all the universities in the country in one fell swoop; the whole thing was planned and executed very nicely. Torben
torben@FORALIE.ICS.HAWAII.EDU (Torben Nielsen) (06/10/90)
In response to Kwang Sung's message, Amanda Walker states: >In article <4431@infmx.UUCP>, kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes: >> If you are saying same words to Korea or Japan Government/Industries/ >> Universities, they are going to laugh. > >They haven't so far. TCP/IP is used by many Japanese universities and >industry leaders for the reason that it works and is available right now. >They may be doing research into OSI and MAP/TOP, but they still use TCP/IP >to get their work done. The key point here is what the governments are saying versus what the users are actually doing. Certain government groups may be favoring OSI and pouring lots of money into ``OSI networks". But most all of the actual users I know of are busily putting together IP networks. Even if they have to raise the funds from non-government sources as often happens. For the users - largely scientists, R&D people and students - the key is communicating with their counterparts elsewhere. Currently the Internet is the best vehicle for doing so. The great majority of users simply don't give a damn what the protocols are. They merely wish to get the job done as easily and conveniently as possible. There's a *lot* of work to be done to make *any* kind of network support actual user needs. It would sure be nice if we could spend more time on that instead of on silly religious wars. Kwang Sung: from what I've seen, Korea has a long ways to go before they have any kind of national network supporting the whole research community. So does Japan. And so does the US for that matter. If you're interested in how to do national networking *efficiently* (in terms of reaching your audience and making it possible for them to do what they need to do), take a look at the Australian AARN. It's very well done. Torben
richardt@Legato.COM (06/10/90)
Hmmm... I would vote for the creation of this newsgroup. *Because* I believe that the OSI 'migration' is doomed to go the way of the Edsel. While this does (like all of the other "we'll have OSI running Real Soon Now" propaganda) run the risk that someone might actually take the migration seriously, it also will provide a public forum in which to demonstrate what is (and is NOT) actually happening. Think of it as a 'give 'em enough rope' strategy. And as for a name, comp.protocols.migration, please. This 'comp.migration.to.iso' stuff is painful to read, as well as completely breaking the naming system. RichardT This is just a test...
louie@SAYSHELL.UMD.EDU (Louis A. Mamakos) (06/11/90)
Its because of things like this that I wish the TCP-IP mailing list would not be gatewayed to the USENET newsgroup comp.protcols.tcpip. The S/N ratio has decreased steadily since it was gatewayed to the newsgroup. First of all, for the USENET folks, you should know that if you want to create a new newsgroup, you should not hold discussion in comp.protocols.tcpip, but in news.groups or something. Post a pointer to it, and carry on elsewhere. Perhaps you don't know that the newsgroup is also a mailing list? comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso? Well, sometime I think that the Milo Medin view on this issue is correct; the ISO migration will turn out to be from ISO BACK to TCP/IP when network users actually want to get work done. So much for my stand on that issue. I remember when you could actually carry on a useful technical discussion on this mailing list. You know, implementations issues and performance hack and the like. Now, I know of many network weenies who can't take the time to sort through the trash to find "useful" messages. So we don't read it very much at all. Perhaps someone from DARPA, NSF, DoE, et al, could fund a person to moderate the TCP-IP mailing list, making it useful once more. Or maybe we could form a new mailing list dedicated to what the TCP-IP list used to be used for. I realize now that the Internet protocol suite has been "discovered" by the trade rags, there are lots of users that need information. I just think that there is still the need for a forum for effective technical discussion. And the TCP-IP@NIC.DDN.MIL mailing list doesn't seem to be the place to do it anymore. Louis Mamakos
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (06/11/90)
In article <4460@infmx.UUCP> kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes:
Recently, I've proposed a new newsgroup
"comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso".
From: Amit Parghi <aparghi@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Don't use the name "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso"; since there
are already groups under "comp.protocols.iso", call it
"comp.protocols.iso.migration".
If comp.protocols.iso and its associated mailing list,
iso@nic.ddn.mil, were swamped with transition traffic (it isn't) and
if its regular readers were calling for help in the form of another,
more focused group and list (they aren't), then the group should be
called comp.protocols.iso.migration, in order to fit in with the
established naming structure.
First of all, I would like to show some responses in order to prove
why we need to create those new newsgroup.
I'd suggest you follow the common newsgroup creation procedure: set up
a mailing list, broadcast its existence to all appropriate, interested
forums (e.g. the existing ISO forums), and invite all interested
parties to join. When the traffic becomes too heavy for members'
mailboxes, you'll have a particularly strong case to call for a new
newsgroup. At that time, ask someone to help you set up a gateway
between your iso-migration list and the new c.p.i.m newsgroup. And
you have my permission, in advance, to say "I told you so" :-)
I suspect that the existing list and group facilities are able to
manage the traffic. In fact, "the impending IP-ISO transition" is one
of the topics of comp.protocols.iso and its associated mailing list.
You have asked the folks there whether they're interested in
segmenting their discussions. From their responses, I see neither the
need or the mandate.
In summary, we should continue discussing migration issues in the
existing forum. When the popular mandate arises for a new forum,
create it as a mailing list. When the mailing list becomes too busy,
establish a gateway to a newsgroup named comp.protocols.iso.migration.karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (06/12/90)
I also support the creation of a "comp.protocols.migrate-to-osi" newsgroup. The longer we can keep the OSI cheerleaders preaching to themselves, the less damage they'll be able to wreak among the rest of us who are building real networks, supporting real users, and solving real problems instead of artificial ones. And during slow moments it'll always be good for a laugh; perhaps somebody can excerpt the better items for rec.jokes.funny. BTW, I think the term "migrate" is highly appropriate here for the very same reason that some others want to change it... Last fall, Marshall Rose and I were among the participants in a panel discussion on protocol standards at the NORDUNET conference in Stockholm. Rolf Nordhagen, the Norwegian moderator, led off with a question that pretty much said it all: "If OSI is the solution, then what is the problem?" I sure wish I had thought of that one. But it's better that a European said it first. Phil