Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: "FTAM" Implications Message-ID: <8612310240.AA04152@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 30-Dec-86 10:42:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612310240.AA04152 Posted: Tue Dec 30 10:42:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Dec-86 01:52:11 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 17 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa In response to your message sent Fri, 26 Dec 86 21:00:25 -0800 I'd feel myself to have been remiss if I didn't observe that the explanation of why the FTAM DIS is inconsistent with the FTAM DP exposes at least a fundamental flaw in ISO's committee structure and arguably one (or more) in the "Reference Model" itself, but on reflection I'd feel I was wasting everybody's time if I bothered to spell it out in any detail--it ought to be nearly obvious anyway. Suffice it to say that it's probably impossible to do Top-down and Bottom-up simultaneously, especially if two (or more) teams are involved, each thinking itself to be in charge. (I will take another I Told You So on my old "It's Layer [sic] 5-7" line, though, and it might not be too pushy to insist on one for the Slogan that begins "The more Layers, the more committees.") rueful cheers, map -------