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: <8711251204.AA15159@umix.cc.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 12:47:40 EST Article-I.D.: umix.8711251204.AA15159 Posted: Tue Nov 24 12:47:40 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 05:00:23 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 38 , userID=DUM1%SFU.BITNET@umix.cc.umich.edu, My_Hangout%SFU.BITNET@umix.cc.umich.edu, Userid=Q73X%UBC.Mailnet@umix.c Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 09:47:40 PST To: userID=DUM1@SFU.MAILNET, userID=DUM1%SFU.BITNET@UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU, My_Hangout%SFU.BITNET@UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU, Userid= LAWS%rsre.mod.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK, CERF@A.ISI.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, oconnor@SCCGATE.SCC.COM Subject: Re: Idle chatter about reference models Sorry to have kept you waiting; I have been off form as it happens, and off to the Left Coast to boot. Rather than succumb to the temptation of trying to see how many epicycles the ISORM has these days (though I must confess I had been convinced at one point in time that the party line was that each layer could/did have a management sublayer--but never found out if that also applied to each sublayer, so wasn't sure if L3 was four or six epicycles deep), let's go back to the initiating question. As I recall, it was something like where things like GGP, EGP, and HMP went in the layering. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for those who didn't bite and in essence placed such things orthogonal to the layering, I would like to observe that there's an alternative for those who find that view unsatisfying: If you believe that the layers are Applications/Process, Host-Host, and Network (Interface)--i.e., the old simple as I, II, III ARM I've always espoused--then the answer ought to be easy to derive for any of the three (or other, like protocols). If they have to do with doing things in common for the users' processes to get the bits to go from Host to Host, then they're L II is one approach. If they're clearly not part of the interface to the proximate comm subnet processor and also fairly clearly not directly germane to the Applications/Process Layer, then they're L II is the other approach. (Note to the original question- raiser: you're of course welcome to use my Form, but it works better if you use my Content too.) (Note to John Laws: as you well know, my main problem with the ISORMites is that they seem to me to be attempting to substitute Form for Content almost all the time.) Hope that's not too characteristically cryptic; if it is, I'll cop a plea based on an imminent cold on top of the jetlag. cheers, map -------