Subject: Re: TCP/IP Terms

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:51:51 +0100

At 03:46 PM 9/30/02 -0700, Ari Ollikainen wrote:
>At 1:30 PM -0700 9/30/02, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>>>>I think the main goal is to compete with
>>>>>OSI's much more defined model.
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with the OSI model?
>>
>>See Padlipsky's "Elements of Network Style", again available in print.
>>It's as relevent now as it was when it was written in 1984:
>>http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0%2D595%2D08879%2D1
>
>         Or, at the very least, read RFC 871 ...

[[
           Perhaps the most significant point of all about Layering is
      that the most frequently-voiced charge at NWG protocol committee
      design meetings was, "That violates Layering!" even though nobody
      had an appreciably-clearer view of what Layering meant than has
      been presented here, yet the ARMS exists.  We can only guess what
      goes on in the design meetings for protocols to become members of
      the ISORM suite (ISORMS), but it doesn't seem likely that having
      more layers could possibly decrease the number of arguments....
]]

... seems kind-of apposite ;-)

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT)

Folks,

I would like to suggest that it is (well past) time to stop
feeding the trolls on this topic.

Bob Braden