toru@trl.mei.junet (Toru Sekine) (06/26/89)
Can anyone tell me the status of the ISO/IEC DIS 10148(?) that is discribed
about Remote Procedure Calls on the OSI, and submitted by ECMA.
It has expected to be adopted until on Feb '89 according to fast-track
procedure. But I have never heard such a information.
Thank you in advance.
--- Toru Sekine
--- Tokyo Research Laboratory
--- Matsushita Elec Ind Co Ltd
--- Phone: (81)44-911-6351 (Ex.667)
--- E-Mail: toru%trl.mei.junet@uunet.uu.netkmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (07/07/89)
/ hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / toru@trl.mei.junet (Toru Sekine) / 1:00 am Jun 26, 1989 / > Can anyone tell me the status of the ISO/IEC DIS 10148(?) that is discribed > about Remote Procedure Calls on the OSI, and submitted by ECMA. > It has expected to be adopted until on Feb '89 according to fast-track > procedure. But I have never heard such a information. It failed the fast-track procedure and was bounced back to DIS. (I believe USA and UK voted no, unknown about others) The work continues... kevin
rhc@RCOLE.HPL.HP.COM (Robert Cole) (07/17/89)
> / hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / toru@trl.mei.junet (Toru Sekine) / 1:00 am J un 26, 1989 / > > Can anyone tell me the status of the ISO/IEC DIS 10148(?) that is discribed > > about Remote Procedure Calls on the OSI, and submitted by ECMA. > > It has expected to be adopted until on Feb '89 according to fast-track > > procedure. But I have never heard such a information. > It failed the fast-track procedure and was bounced back to DIS. > (I believe USA and UK voted no, unknown about others) The work > continues... Since DIS 10148 was on the fast track, failure meant it was dropped completely from the ISO list. There are moves to get a New Work Item for RPC proposed at the Florence meeting of SC21 in November. The US were trying to get a proposal which included a revised version of the ECMA document. The UK are hoping to provide a supporting proposal. There are lots of issues to be addressed in such a standard before any technical work can progress. But everyone seems keen to resolve the issues and make urgent progress on RPC. Robert
Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR (Christian Huitema) (07/19/89)
As ROS appears to many as having pretty much the same purpose as RPC, could you comment on the differences + the rationales for yet another standard?
rhc@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM (Robert Cole) (07/19/89)
> As ROS appears to many as having pretty much the same purpose as RPC, > could you comment on the differences + the rationales for yet another standar d? I believe the ECMA RPC standard is effectively a subset of ROS as far as operational semantics is concerned; though a future standard may change that. The two things that an RPC standard ought to add to ROS are: 1. Some idea of a programming language binding, including semantics that make the use of remote operations obvious and automatic for a programmer. This includes the notion of binding at compile, link, run, time which ROS barely touches on. 2. Standard syntax for data structures commonly found in programming languages and constructs for building the usual complex data structures. These are all mappable onto ASN.1, but a standard will give a single way to do this. Arrays and pointers seem to present the most problems here. Since the end-point of the protocol is different from that of ROS, and is more particular, I believe that a separate standard is needed. I do believe that it will make use of ROS to achieve some of its semantics. A future standard will have to consider the difference between idem potent and non-idem potent operations as a possible efficiency measure. It may also consider the appropriate use of connectionless working. These are, of course, my personal opinions and I would be happy to debate them. Robert