Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!tcp-ip-RELAY From: tcp-ip-RELAY@SRI-NIC.ARPA.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8711251933.AA25816@umix.cc.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 14:41:06 EST Article-I.D.: umix.8711251933.AA25816 Posted: Tue Nov 24 14:41:06 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 06:19:37 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 31 , LAWS%rsre.mod.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK, CERF@A.ISI.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, oconnor@SCCGATE.SCC.COM Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:41:06 PST To: userID=DUM1@SFU.MAILNET, LAWS%rsre.mod.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK, CERF@A.ISI.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, oconnor@SCCGATE Subject: Re: Idle chatter about reference models Ooops. More off form than I'd realized [/realised]: Belatedly occurred to me that the Layer, Layer, Who's Got the Layer context is a good one for remembering that even if the ISORMites still think you've got to traverse every layer every time, I never did (and they might not any more, if one thinks things like "MAP" [which, of course, should be "MAPS" to begin with, since it's a Suite, not just A protocol] are ISORMitic, since it blithely skips a layer or two on its way). So I'd refine my answer to the original question to include something like "They sure seem to me to be operating at L II WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING." That might somehow subsume the notion that a few people had that they're not really "in" the "stack"--or perhaps subvert it, if not subsume it. (And I guess it's also worth pointing out that is assumes HMP, which I haven't looked at, doesn't muddy the waters and operate over TCP connections, which would almost make it have to be L III by my insistently non-rigorous definitions.) fuzzy cheers, map p.s. So as not to generate a new Glossary call, for the benefit of those who haven't been around long enough, "ISORM" = ISO Reference Model; ISORMite = follower of the ISORM who I feel is of dubious worth (as opp. to ISORMist, which is one I feel to be sound in other respects but wrong about the RM issue). (The reason why I don't use "OSI" is that I feel it begs the question; i.e., they may say they're doing Open System Interconnection in their name, but are they in their RM ... or their standard protocols? Besides, I like the sound of ISORM.) -------