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
-------