oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (06/12/90)
In article <9006062107.AA23343@moose.informix.com>, kwang@moose.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes: > 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. I think such a group might not be too inappropriate. I am in the middle of planning such a migration for a multi-thousand node global network, and while I don't expect things to happen instantly, it's time to start looking at the issues. As far as the group name, I might suggest comp.protocols.iso.transition. It fits the existing structure much better (I think). I prefer transition to migration because the birds keep migrating back and forth and if we make it to ISO, we plan to stay there. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.