<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ih] Ken Olsen's impact on the
Internet</title></head><body>
<div>Yes, this is true. The idea was that technology was moving
fast enough that one needed to standardize to a point in the
future.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The mistake that OSI made which is at the root of all others was
inviting the PTT to participate as a joint project. Their
desires were definitely rooted in maintaining the status quo.
Most of the flaws in the OSI model can be traced to the PTTs.
Although some were just the state of understanding and are found in
the Internet architecture as well.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>So is standardizing to a point in the future a bad idea? It
is always hard to predict the future, but what the future needs is
usually at a more detailed level than the standards need to address.
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But as with any standards process the most important thing is to
get them reasonably stable before most people think they are
important.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 14:46 +0000 2011/02/14, Eric Gade wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Miles
Fidelman <<a
href="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a
>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <br>
<blockquote>OSI was an attempt to impose a classical, top-down,
standards approach<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>It is my understanding that a top-down
process is fairly uncommon as far as the formation of international
technical standards are concerned, and that OSI was abberant in this
regard.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Eric</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>