craig@NNSC.NSF.NET (Craig Partridge) (06/28/90)
>>It seems to me that it would be very useful for you to bring your discussion >>and proposals for OSI migration into the appropriate IETF WGs, rather than >>duplication efforts (or at least leave the discussion in the ISO mailing >>list, which has a lot of cross participation), > > I understood. However, IETF-OSI WGs are mostly working within Internet > community. There are a lot of companies such as Informix who does not access > the Internet directly, but wants to migrate to OSI from TCP/IP, SNA, DECNET,etc. > In that sense, IETF-OSI cannot resolve more general migration strategies. > I think USENET is the easiest network we can get. Therefore, I would like to > create such a newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration" on USENET. Right now, > only 73 persons were listed for votes. Among them, 25 persons said "NO". > Obviously, currently there are not much traffic on "comp.protocols.iso". > However, it IS necessary to create such a newsgroup on USENET for the future, > since I am confident all of our networking fields are moving towards one OSI > world. I don't understand the thinking behind this comment. Because you don't have Internet access (but can clearly get Internet e-mail), you want to create a separate list? Or is it, because we have TCP-IP but are not on the Internet, we don't believe the Internet TCP-IP migration strategy will help us? If it is this (latter) concern, I think you're wrong. Much better to have one coherent TCP-IP to OSI migration plan than to have three or four or five. Particularly since multiple plans permit multiple versions of OSI as targets, with the result that people will migrate to incompatible versions of OSI. Then we'll all have to get together to plan the OSI to OSI migration (unless Milo Medin with his reverse migration WG [OSI back to TCP-IP] gets there first). >>In my opinion, this would only further splinter the available resources, and >>possibly do exactly what none of us want to see right now -- slow down the >>process. > In my opinion, this will make OSI world more active and aggressive. Well, making things active and aggressive isn't necessarily good. Making the world effective is the goal. Craig Partridge IESG Area Director, Host and User Services
keith@excelan.COM (Keith Brown) (06/29/90)
Look... Your all wrong! I would like to propose a new newsgroup entitled
"comp.protocols.migrate.to.appletalk". Clearly the appletalk protocol
represents the future of all network system software running on computers
of all architectures.
In fact, only yesterday I suggested to our CIS group that we convert
our backbone network to *pure* appletalk and insist that vendors
encapsulate all their propietary rubbish inside appletalk DDP or
similar packets until the transition can be completed properly.
Regards,
Keith Brown
C/O Intensive Care Unit
San Jose General Hospital
Unit for Serious Head Injuries
P.S. These are my views not Novell's, and if anyone wishes to sue me I
would like them to know in advance that I have *no* money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Brown Phone: (408) 473 8308
Novell San Jose Development Centre Fax: (408) 433 0775
San Jose, California 95131 Net: keith@novell.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------tebbutt@RHINO.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Tebbutt) (06/29/90)
>Look... Your all wrong! I would like to propose a new newsgroup entitled >"comp.protocols.migrate.to.appletalk". Clearly the appletalk protocol >represents the future of all network system software running on computers >of all architectures. Hear, hear ! At last someone is making some sense out of all this nonsense ! JT [B-) Routine disclaimer : The information expressed herein is of very little interest to anybody, and most certainly does not reflect the position of the US Govt. That's right - it's all my fault.