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.
grieve@cos.com (David Grieve) (06/07/90)
In article <4415@infmx.UUCP> kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes: > >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 I would call it "comp.tcp.osi.transition" Migration means you go away and then come back. Transition means you go away for good. -- grieve@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!grieve DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body. Typos are intellectual property of the author.
jessop@rlgvax.OPCR.ICL.COM (Lynn Jessop) (06/09/90)
If you really want the application level products of OSI and still want to exist in the real world RFC1006 causes TCP to emulate TP4 and lets you run X.400 etc over existing TCP/IP networks.
stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud) (06/10/90)
Although Marshall Rose (Hi Marshall) seems to be saying that he does not want to discuss this topic, I would like to suggest that broadened discussion of ISO Transition issues is a good idea. It would be my purpose to expand the number of people who are exposed to the issues and their resolutions. This cannot be achived without broad based and wide ranging discussion. I have no fear that open internet discussion will fail to lead to a correct understanding of the whole situation. So, your proposal sounds fine to me, unless it is preferred to discuss transition issues in the iso@nic.ddn.mil list? If a new list is formed, where will the Internet Mailing List be set up with a gateway to the newsgroup? I wouwld hope that this not become a USENET only discussion. Best...\Stef
schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") (06/10/90)
Stef, Although Marshall Rose (Hi Marshall) seems to be saying that he does not want to discuss this topic, I would like to suggest that broadened discussion of ISO Transition issues is a good idea. There are many of us who are only interested in talking about coexistence since we are now so old (like being in our 30's) that we won't live long enough to see a transition. :-) Marty
mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) (06/10/90)
It would seem to me that given the modest amount of traffic on the ISO list, that the topic could be discussed there without forming another newsgroup and then arranging an internet feed. /mtr
Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud) (06/10/90)
Hi Marty -- >Stef, >> Although Marshall Rose (Hi Marshall) seems to be saying that he does not >> want to discuss this topic, I would like to suggest that broadened >> discussion of ISO Transition issues is a good idea. >There are many of us who are only interested in talking about coexistence >since we are now so old (like being in our 30's) that we won't live >long enough to see a transition. >:-) Marty I agree entirely that the entire strategy is captured in the concept of co-existence, with transition left to take care of itself over time. Indeed, co-existence (with interworking among communities) is the obvious first goal, which of course cannot be resolved by answering the question of "which is better" in some techno-religious sense. Attempts to answer this question on technical merit grounds can only intensify community differences and inhibit interworking among communities. What we need to find are strategies that blur the boundaries rather than sharpen them. But, just because you and I and Marshall (and others) have figured all this out and have the strategic issues resolved out, does not mean that we should keep the rest of the world from wrestling with the issues in their own way. They may even come to agree with us in the end. As I read the writings from Korea so far, I see that they are embracing all the tools we advocate (Application Gateways, Transport Bridges, and Network Tunnels) for co-existence, while also lamenting that it would be easier for OSI to overcome the TCP/IP lead if TCP/IP had never happened. This whole issue is going to be resolved in the marketplace and not in any network discussion of this sort. What I would hope is that after some pounding away by the die-hards and fanatics, that the wise among us will find it easier to make their presence felt in the market place. In other words, find it easier to make the right purchase decisions. Cheers...\Stef
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.jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (06/13/90)
In article <9006092257.AA05578@psi.com>, schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") writes: > Stef, > > Although Marshall Rose (Hi Marshall) seems to be saying that he does not > want to discuss this topic, I would like to suggest that broadened > discussion of ISO Transition issues is a good idea. > > There are many of us who are only interested in talking about coexistence > since we are now so old (like being in our 30's) that we won't live > long enough to see a transition. Hey, you think you're an old timer? I recall 'way back around '70 when I first got mixed up with computers, and one of the common predictions then was that modems would soon be outdated, to replaced by much better digital comm lines. So now I find myself debugging SLIP packages on various new modems (both of which will, of course, soon be obsolete :-). Sure, in 5 years or so, lots of vendors will have lots of OSI products. But what makes you think TCP/IP will be dead (or even dying) in 2010? Chances are, it'll be installed on many more systems than now, and we'll all be trying to retrofit the 1995 upgrades to alleviate the problems caused by the 32-bit IP address in a world with 7 trillion IP hosts. A couple years back, there was a cute NPR story about the non-celebration of the 100th anniversary of the USA officially adopting the Metric system as the legal standard. If history is any guide, in 2090, we'll likely be in a similar situation with computer networks -- the rest of the Solar System will be OSI, the US government will have long since decreed it standard, but the USA will be overwhelmingly TCP/IP. (BTW, has anyone else noticed that NASA runs on EST/EDT, not UT? ;-) -- Uucp: ...!{harvard.edu,ima.com,eddie.mit.edu}!minya!jc (John Chambers) Home: 1-617-484-6393 Work: 1-508-952-3274 Cute-Saying: It's never to late to have a happy childhood.