Subject: TCP/IP Terms

From: "Bill Cunningham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:29:00 -0400

Vint,
    I'm sure you've been following the discussion concerning the confusion
that has been arising inside and especially outside the IETF community about
TCP/IP terminology. In reading RFCs 793,1122-3 it seems to me that TCP/IP
doesn't center so much around layering as it does protocols. Datagrams at
the transport and Internet layer, for example. Micheal Py is a follower of
the OSI model and while I believe in innovative freedom and eveyone or
anyone can design a model, I'm behind TCP/IP. I've even been thinking about
writing a draft that would be a call to the internet community for more
standardization of TCP/IP to clear up terms and layering discrepancies, at
least discrepancies to me anyway.
    For example Vint, If someone said to me "datagram." I would have no idea
what he was talking about unless he said UDP or TCP datagram or IP datagram.
Then knowing the model I would understand.
    I have been criticized for being too particular about things and too
"trolling." I only want TCP/IP to be able to survive and compete. In a world
of IPX, SPX, OSI, NetBUEI, etc. TCP/IP should be able to run on any
Intranet, Extranet, and of course the Internet, with the best of them.
    - Bill

---

From: TOMSON ERIC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:10:30 +0200

Bill,

I think that such terms as "Internet", "Intranet" and "Extranet" DO owe their existence to the wide implementation and use of TCP/IP.

So - IMHO - you don't have to worry about TCP/IP to "survive" and "compete" (particularly against SPX/IPX and NetBIOS/NetBEUI). ;)

TCP/IP DOES RUN on any Intranet, Extranet and Internet, because - by definition - they DO RUN TCP/IP.

Regarding OSI, just consider it as a theoretical reference model particularly well-fitted for training purposes (even if it's NOT limited to that), if this can ease your mind. :)

P.S.: on the other hand, I don't think TCP/IP needs to be "protected". It only needs a smooth migration to IPv6.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:[email-masked]] 

(...)
    I have been criticized for being too particular about things and too "trolling." I only want TCP/IP to be able to survive and compete. In a world of IPX, SPX, OSI, NetBUEI, etc. TCP/IP should be able to run on any Intranet, Extranet, and of course the Internet, with the best of them.
(...)

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:00:11 -0700

> Eric Tomson wrote:
> I think that such terms as "Internet", "Intranet" and
> "Extranet" DO owe their existence to the wide
> implementation and use of TCP/IP.
> So - IMHO - you don't have to worry about TCP/IP to
> "survive" and "compete" (particularly against SPX/IPX
> and NetBIOS/NetBEUI). ;)
> TCP/IP DOES RUN on any Intranet, Extranet and Internet,
> because - by definition - they DO RUN TCP/IP.
> Regarding OSI, just consider it as a theoretical
> reference model particularly well-fitted for training
> purposes (even if it's NOT limited to that), if this
> can ease your mind. :)
> P.S.: on the other hand, I don't think TCP/IP needs to be
> "protected". It only needs a smooth migration to IPv6.

I Agree with Eric (BTW Eric I stole your PDU names for the OSI model,
they're better than mine). This has nothing to do with the protocol
suite, but with model semantics.

Michel.