Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA!mrose From: mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: "FTAM" Implications Message-ID: <6841.536043625@nrtc-gremlin.arpa> Date: Sat, 27-Dec-86 02:24:21 EST Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.6841.536043625 Posted: Sat Dec 27 02:24:21 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Dec-86 04:35:32 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 22 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa I always speak casually, but your inference was correct: the DP FTAM was written at a time when the Presentation Layer was not solid enough to use. It consisted of some encoding mechanisms and an abstract syntax methodology, but did not contain the "usual" network-style primitives (e.g., OPEN, CLOSE, TRANSFER). So, the "sanctioned" interpretation was: - in FTAM you had the presentation encoding mechanisms - presentation was NULL - session did all the work The fact that the DIS uses presentation is not a fundamental change in thinking--it merely reflects the fact that the presentation specification can now be used. For those of you familiar with the 1984 CCITT recommendations on Message Handling Systems, the situation is identical (X.409 is used to encode/decode, X.215 is used to move bits). FTAM is File Transfer, Access, and Management. /mtr