mckenzie@LABS-N.BBN.COM (Alex McKenzie) (06/29/88)
Based on comments received, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I meant to suggest that the community consider adopting the ISO VTP (or a subset) to *replace* Telnet, not to simulate ISO VTP with a bunch of Telnet options. Since the ISO VTP is intended to provide the mechanisms to dynamically define which user input characters trigger transmission and suspend "local" echoing, it seems to me we should look at that solution first (i.e., before the IETF goes off to invent a new set of Telnet options to do a similar thing). Alex
perry@PRC.UNISYS.COM (Dennis Perry) (06/29/88)
I think Alex's words are words we should strongly consider, just as with network managment moving towards ISO, we should move Telnet towards VTP. dennis
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (07/04/88)
If you'd like to submit an RFC describing ISO VTP, I'd be happy to look at it. As long as descriptions of ISO protocols are not available online, I don't think they're going to make much headway in the Internet community.
philipp@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (Philip A. Prindeville) (07/05/88)
It would be nice if the NIC were to furnish the ISO documents on-line. Of course, this would require a significant amount of storage, as they tend to be much more wordy than the equivalent RFCs... :-) -Philip
KASTEN@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Frank Kastenholz) (07/05/88)
>It would be nice if the NIC were to furnish the ISO documents >on-line. Of course, this would require a significant amount >of storage, as they tend to be much more wordy than the >equivalent RFCs... :-) Also, they tend to be copyrighted (at least my copy of IS 7498 - the basic reference model - is). And rights for copying are assigned to the "local" national standards org (ANSI in the USA).
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (07/05/88)
In article <8807051529.AA07979@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KASTEN@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Frank Kastenholz) writes: > [quoting P. Prindeville] >>It would be nice if the NIC were to furnish the ISO documents >>on-line. Of course, this would require a significant amount >>of storage, as they tend to be much more wordy than the >>equivalent RFCs... :-) > >Also, they tend to be copyrighted (at least my copy of IS 7498 - the >basic reference model - is). And rights for copying are assigned to >the "local" national standards org (ANSI in the USA). And they, in turn, assign the rights to sell the printed documents to publishers like Omnicom, who make money selling ISO standards and drafts. Not likely to go on-line anytime soon when Omnicom is making money selling printed copies. Ah, when will we have royalty procedures for on-line publishing??
smart@ditmela.oz (Robert Smart) (07/06/88)
Perhaps ANSI in the USA won't allow the ISO standards to be put on-line (are they really that short-sighted?), how about an Internet site in some other country: Canada is the obvious choice. Maybe Australia will be on the Internet some day. What is the situation with making material for which you have local copyright available to a world network? Anyway we don't want the standard ISO documents on-line. They're incomprehensible (except for the CLN documents which are nice). What we want is a description of the protocols that us ordinary folk can read. Bob Smart
Dave_Katz@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU (07/06/88)
>Also, they tend to be copyrighted (at least my copy of IS 7498 - the >basic reference model - is). And rights for copying are assigned to >the "local" national standards org (ANSI in the USA). There is a loophole--draft standards may be distributed free of charge in order to "further the cause of standardization." There is precedent for publishing draft standards as RFCs (8473 [ISO IP], for instance). The trick is getting whoever has the machine-readable source for the text to create straight ASCII for public consumption (and of course the diagrams and such disappear).
philipp@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (Philip A. Prindeville) (07/06/88)
I assume you aren't repulsed by the idea of the ISO trying to make money on standards? I believe that they should be able to charge a "handling fee" for printed copies, but if one eliminates (or subsidizes) this cost, what is it to them? -Philip
torben@DORSAI.ICS.HAWAII.EDU ("Torben N. Nielsen") (07/07/88)
>There is a loophole--draft standards may be distributed free of charge >in order to "further the cause of standardization." There is precedent >for publishing draft standards as RFCs (8473 [ISO IP], for instance). >The trick is getting whoever has the machine-readable source for the >text to create straight ASCII for public consumption (and of course >the diagrams and such disappear). > Could something be done to generate a Postscript copy of it? Most people can at least get access to such a device somewhere close by.... And it should not be difficult to argue that distributing these documents across the Internet *would* indeed further the cause of standardization. Who could ``do something" to make this happen? ANSI? NBS?
Dave_Katz@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU (07/07/88)
>Could something be done to generate a Postscript copy of it? Most people >can at least get access to such a device somewhere close by.... And it should >not be difficult to argue that distributing these documents across the >Internet *would* indeed further the cause of standardization. Who could ``do >something" to make this happen? ANSI? NBS? I would suggest talking to the chairperson of whichever ANSI committee handles VTP. To find out which committee, talk to the ANSI X3 Secretariat at the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA) in Washington, DC. The chairperson could shed light on the current state of the document and who the document editor is. The document editor will likely be the only person who could provide any machine-readable text, and the particular format is up to the editor (since ISO takes camera-ready hardcopy for publication and doesn't really care how it was generated).
KASTEN@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Frank Kastenholz) (07/08/88)
>Anyway we don't want the standard ISO documents on-line. They're >incomprehensible (except for the CLN documents which are nice). What >we want is a description of the protocols that us ordinary folk can >read. Perhaps we can get Jon Postel to (re)edit them?
mrose@TWG.COM (Marshall Rose) (07/09/88)
It is so tempting to simply flame at you two (Kastenholz and Smart)
but rather than do so I will explain, calmly, the errors of your
ways. Consider this a pronouncement of The Truth.
It is a mistake to, as Robert Smart suggests,
> Anyway we don't want the standard ISO documents on-line. They're
> incomprehensible (except for the CLN documents which are nice). What
> we want is a description of the protocols that us ordinary folk can
> read.
re-edit the ISO documents and then distribute them. The ISO
documents use a consistent OSI terminology and are perfectly
comprehensible from the basis of that framework. Three years ago I
was unable to read an OSIfied document and make sense out of it.
Today I am able to, and can tell you that the network layer
documents aren't really any better or worse than any of the other
OSI documents with respect to readability. In fact, if you want to
read a truly outrageous document, get a copy of "The Internal
Organization of the Network Layer" (the IONL), which will convince
any thinking person that the TCP/IP architecture is vastly superior
to the full-blown OSI network layer.
The reason why the ISO documents are copyrighted is not so Omnicom
can make a paltry sum of money on each standard (the ~$1000 figure
is for their update service in which they filter the output of
standards bodies for you and send you the things that you are
interested in seeing). The real reason is so that
NO ONE WILL EDIT THEM AND MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THE RESULT IS
RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL STANDARD
The problem with having anyone edit them is that you lose meaning
and misinform. OSI documents make sense once you learn the lingo.
It is more formal than the language used in the DARPA/NSF Internet
community (plain English) but it is not as bad as the way the Inca
of Peru used to write things down (they stored information on
strings, carefully knotted in a specific manner and with colored thread).
Now, having told you The Truth, keep in mind that I think that it
would be nice for someone to write a moderately lengthy explanation
of what each OSI standard is saying, and to write that in a more
easy to understand format. It would be less accurate, but would be
useful for getting across the gist of things. However, editing
standards and the like is simply the wrong way to do it.
/mtr
ps: The word "OSIfy" is a new word that I invented earlier this year.
The precise meaning is:
"to obscure, to make unclear for no good reason"
It is often used in the context of the output of standards
committees, although its use is not limited to committees which
produce OSI standards. In fact, some might claim that MILSTD 1778
is an OSIfied version of RFC793.