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: "FTAM" Implications Message-ID: <8612250253.AA16209@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 24-Dec-86 15:25:13 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612250253.AA16209 Posted: Wed Dec 24 15:25:13 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Dec-86 00:35:42 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 25 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa Depending on just what he meant by it, there are some potentially intriguing implications lurking in Marshall Rose's statement the other day that the "FTAM" Draft International Standard doesn't even use "the same underlying services" as its (presumed) predecessor Draft Proposal did. This should be clarified, since if it turns out to mean either that the principles of Layering have suddenly been altered (after all, if they were both at/for the same L, one wouldn't think the underlying services _could_ differ, by definition--unless the trick is that they decided to go to/from "connectionless"), or that the DP was somehow aimed at/for the "wrong" L originally, it really ought to cost ISO a fair amount of credibility. Maybe Marshall was just speaking more casually than I'd assumed he was, though. Whatever the explanation, I think we should all get to hear it. On a probably less significant plane, I also wonder, not having noticed an expansion of "FTAM" anywhere in the message, whether the "AM" means "Access Method." (The "FT" is presumably clear from context.) If so, is this literally or merely figuratively in the IBM "OS" (and successors) sense of the term? If literally, is the problem with the DIS and the DP perhaps that Access Methods don't really correspond cleanly to Layers and it was a change of the arbitrary designation from (I'd imagine, but not bet) 7 to 6 that altered the "underlying services"? -------