jag@PacBell.COM (Jim Goncher) (08/30/90)
I have been follwoing the debate here and in UNIX Today! between OSF/DCE/NCS
and SUN/Netwise/ONC folk. In the August 20 issue of UNIX Today! reference
is made by Richard Mackey of OSF to "the upcoming ISO/OSI RPC protocol."
My ignorance may be showing, but what is he talking about? Is there a name
for this service (e.g. ROSE, CMISE) and a standards number? What is the status
of the standard? I know about ROSE (Remote Operations Service Element), but
this is not what is being referenced is it? It's already in International
Standards status....I think.
Perhaps Mr. Mishkin could explan.....or, Mr. Earnhardt.
BTW - I have enjoyed the debate immensely. Thanks for all the interesting
viewpoints. Keep it up if there's more that needs to be said.
Jim Goncher
--
Jim Goncher 415/823-0663 {bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!jagmishkin@apollo.HP.COM (Nathaniel Mishkin) (09/01/90)
In article <5370@ptsfa.PacBell.COM>, jag@PacBell.COM (Jim Goncher) writes: >I have been follwoing the debate here and in UNIX Today! between OSF/DCE/NCS >and SUN/Netwise/ONC folk. In the August 20 issue of UNIX Today! reference >is made by Richard Mackey of OSF to "the upcoming ISO/OSI RPC protocol." >My ignorance may be showing, but what is he talking about? Is there a name >for this service (e.g. ROSE, CMISE) and a standards number? What is the status >of the standard? I know about ROSE (Remote Operations Service Element), but >this is not what is being referenced is it? It's already in International >Standards status....I think. I don't know ALL the details (thank goodness), but my understanding is that people who DO understand the details have decided that ROSE as currently defined, while it looks sort of like RPC, is probably not sufficient in several respects. There is some ISO work group (or whatever such things are officially called) investigating RPC. I suspect they will be getting input from ECMA (which has produced an RPC proposal) and ANSI (which has at least been debating producing such a proposal). >BTW - I have enjoyed the debate immensely. Thanks for all the interesting >viewpoints. Keep it up if there's more that needs to be said. Hey Phil, we've found at least one other person who's crazy enough to still be reading this (or hasn't figured out how to use "global kill" on "RPC Technologies" :-) -- -- Nat Mishkin Cooperative Object Computing Operation Hewlett-Packard Company mishkin@apollo.hp.com
jag@PacBell.COM (Jim Goncher) (09/01/90)
In article <1990Aug31.133742@apollo.HP.COM> mishkin@apollo.HP.COM (Nathaniel Mishkin) writes: >In article <5370@ptsfa.PacBell.COM>, jag@PacBell.COM (Jim Goncher) writes: >> In the August 20 issue of UNIX Today! reference >>is made by Richard Mackey of OSF to "the upcoming ISO/OSI RPC protocol." >>My ignorance may be showing, but what is he talking about? > > There is some ISO work group (or whatever such things >are officially called) investigating RPC. Nathaniel, I think I have found the standard in question. The standard number and name are in my notes at work, but I believe the name is Basic Remote Procedure Call Using Remote Operations (ROSE). We found this reference in an index of standards put out by Omnicom and have put in an order for it. I believe that you (and others) are correct in assessing ROSE as being insufficient since they are defining this one on top of ROSE. Also, it is in DIS (Draft International Status) meaning it is far along in the standards process -- the next and last step is International Standard. By the way, CMISE (a blatantly object-oriented protocol) also uses ROSE. >Hey Phil, we've found at least one other person who's crazy enough to >still be reading this (or hasn't figured out how to use "global kill" >on "RPC Technologies" :-) I've been passing printed copies of the stuff from you guys around to a group of us investigating application communications paradigms, and they're sucking it up. Soooo, I'm not alone in my insanity :-) -- Jim Goncher 415/823-0663 {bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!jag