<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
People bring proposals to standards bodies, who choose among them,
modify them, accept them and reject them. "Existing practices" in
the most interesting cases are confined to the lab or even to
simulation these days. <br>
<br>
I think you're making a false distinction between OSI and other
networking standards. OSI problem was mainly that it was not
top-down enough, had too many cooks, and had to offer too many
options to achieve consensus.<br>
<br>
On 2/17/2011 6:04 PM, Eric Gade wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimXq1G3B_Na4cevdHDVUiq77GXU6=9TWXATJvKi@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Richard
Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richard@bennett.com">richard@bennett.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">In what sense was OSI top-down? The OSI
process was every bit as much a bottoms-up, participant-driven
process as IEEE 802 is today. If there ever was a top-down
standards process in the networking world directed by two or
three lords of the purse, it certainly wasn't OSI. </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>We sort of got into this last week, but didn't push it too
far. OSI is unique from an international standards perspective
because the was prescriptive. As far as I know, it was an
unprecedented move for ISO (and maybe national standards
orgs?) because they typically standardized existing practices.
OSI was, to my knowledge, mandated in some way where it was
creating practices rather than standardizing existing ones.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Eric</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Richard Bennett</pre>
</body>
</html>