From pgross at pgross.net Fri Dec 2 11:51:53 2005 From: pgross at pgross.net (Phill Gross) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:51:53 -0500 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering Message-ID: I am looking for some specific information on protocol layering and architecture, and Bob Braden suggested this list might be a good source. 1. Does anyone have pointers to or copies of pre-1984 drafts of the OSI reference model (either X.200 or ISO 7498)? I already have the 1984 CCITT Red book which contains X.200. There are references to 1978 versions of both X.200 and 7498. But I've not been able to find an actual copy of either. (Also, assuming a copy is available, do we still need to satisfy ITU/ISO distribution restrictions for these old drafts?) 2. Can anyone provide pointers to the original/earliest standards docs that define the telecom "3-plane" concept (User plane, Control plane, Mgmt plane)? Thanks, Phill Gross -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at aland.bbn.com Fri Dec 2 12:25:29 2005 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:25:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:51:53 EST." Message-ID: <20051202202529.5A3A54D@aland.bbn.com> Hi Phill: For the OSI reference model. The paper on it is Zimmer's "OSI Reference Model..." from IEEE Transactions on Communications, April 1980 and that cites two outputs of SC16: ISO/TC97/SC16 "Provisional model of open systems architecture", Doc N34, March 1978. ISO/TC97/SC16, "Reference model of open systems interconnection," Doc N227, June 1979. I have no idea how you'd acquire them, but presumably they sit in a file cabinet somewhere... I did a quick look through back network management stuff but didn't find any obvious pointers to a telco standard document. Craig From pgross at pgross.net Sat Dec 3 07:52:10 2005 From: pgross at pgross.net (Phill Gross) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:52:10 -0500 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: <20051202202529.5A3A54D@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: > cites two outputs of SC16.. > > I have no idea how you'd acquire them, but presumably they sit in a file > cabinet somewhere... Craig, Thanks for the references. Getting copies is definitely the problem. Anyone in this group have a dusty filing cabinet? > I did a quick look through back network management stuff but didn't > find any obvious pointers to a telco standard document. I've queried a number of experienced telecom folks and the consensus appears to be 1) the 3-plane model was not original intended to be applied to layered protocols, although it's been adopted later for that use, 2) they are not able to cite sources for standard definitions of how to apply it to layered protocols, but more interestingly, 3) they couldn't point to the original standard that defined it for telecom(!). I've found a number of documents (eg, BISDN) that use some flavor of the 3-plane model, but most seemed derived and often modified (eg, adding extra planes). I'm still tracing references. If I find the headwaters, I'll report back. Perhaps the 3-plane model is like that other widespread concept that defies clear definition, and like Potter Stewart, we just know it when we see it. : ) Phill From sbrim at cisco.com Sat Dec 3 11:22:48 2005 From: sbrim at cisco.com (Scott W Brim) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:22:48 -0500 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: References: <20051202202529.5A3A54D@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <20051203192248.GP4440@sbrim-wxp01> On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 10:52:10AM -0500, Phill Gross allegedly wrote: > I've queried a number of experienced telecom folks and the consensus > appears to be 1) the 3-plane model was not original intended to be > applied to layered protocols, although it's been adopted later for > that use, 2) they are not able to cite sources for standard > definitions of how to apply it to layered protocols, but more > interestingly, 3) they couldn't point to the original standard that > defined it for telecom(!). Phill, I can't help on the history, but if you are looking for modern discussion of planes-cum-layers, work in SG15 Question 12 might be useful. However, that's about the G.805/G.809 concept of layer networks, not X.200 layers. By the way, in SG13 some of us are collaborating on a document about principles of interworking various combinations of planes, layers networks and modes. > I've found a number of documents (eg, BISDN) that use some flavor of > the 3-plane model, but most seemed derived and often modified (eg, > adding extra planes). I'm still tracing references. If I find the > headwaters, I'll report back. The "plane" concept has been transmogrified many times, and often conflates with "layer". We now have a "services plane" and a number of "planes" in security architecture that have nothing to do with early concepts. > Perhaps the 3-plane model is like that other widespread concept that > defies clear definition, and like Potter Stewart, we just know it > when we see it. : ) I'll be very interested in what you find. swb From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Dec 4 17:28:23 2005 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:28:23 -0800 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439397B7.8010309@dcrocker.net> > There are references to 1978 versions of both X.200 and 7498. But I?ve > not been able to find an actual copy of either. (Also, assuming a copy > is available, do we still need to satisfy ITU/ISO distribution > restrictions for these old drafts?) I seem to recall having specification of the original 7-layer model come out in 1976, but perhaps that was not the final version of that round of effort. And as long as you have raised the subject, I will share with folks an historical perspective that I've enjoyed about the effect that producing the 7-layer model had: Before it existed, networking technical discussions among people meeting for the first time usually took the first half of the meeting to agree on terms of reference and the second half doing real work. The OSI 7-layer model was revolutionary. After it came out, similar first-time meetings consumed the first half, complaining about the OSI model, and the second half using it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking From feinler at earthlink.net Sun Dec 4 17:48:57 2005 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:48:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Phil! How are you, and what are you doing these days? As I recollect there were IFIP groups that came up with the earliest versions of the CCITT protocols, and they then went through the usual ISO/CCITT approval process. We have the CCITT yellow books (which I think preceded the red books) and I have a ton of protocol stuff that we collected at the NIC for DCA way back when. I volunteer for the museum now and am in the process of trying to organize years of papers that were dumped (literally) together several times, so don't know if I can find what you are looking for. I will give it a try next Weds. when I am down at the museum again. If we do have the documents you want, Paula Jabloner, the museum Archivist would have to approve the lending procedures. Her email is jabloner at computerhistory.org. Regards, Jake Feinler On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote: > > 1. Protocol layering (Phill Gross) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:51:53 -0500 > From: "Phill Gross" > Subject: [ih] Protocol layering > To: > Cc: comer at cs.purdue.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I am looking for some specific information on protocol layering and > architecture, and Bob Braden suggested this list might be a good > source. > > 1. Does anyone have pointers to or copies of pre-1984 drafts of the OSI > reference model (either X.200 or ISO 7498)? I already have the 1984 > CCITT > Red book which contains X.200. > > There are references to 1978 versions of both X.200 and 7498. But > I've not > been able to find an actual copy of either. (Also, assuming a copy is > available, do we still need to satisfy ITU/ISO distribution > restrictions for > these old drafts?) Probably not, but as I said above, Paula is the last word on these issues. > > 2. Can anyone provide pointers to the original/earliest standards docs > that > define the telecom "3-plane" concept (User plane, Control plane, Mgmt > plane)? > > Thanks, > > Phill Gross > > > From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Dec 4 18:03:58 2005 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:03:58 -0800 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: <439397B7.8010309@dcrocker.net> References: <439397B7.8010309@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1133748238.19050.32.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> My recollection from the late 70s and early 80s is that we spent a lot of meeting time trying to figure out how our TCP/IP/etc technology fit into the OSI 7-layer model, with notions like "layer 2a" and such shoehorning. Eventually we gave up and just wrote code. In retrospect, the CCITT model was based on telephony, and the only major function that the telephone network really did was to create a virtual circuit for streams of voice. The Internet was so much more complex that I don't think it fit well into that model. Telephone instruments only talked to each other and to "the system" when dialing or disconnecting. Internet "hosts" talk to lots of other hosts for many purposes - web, file transfer, DNS, SNMP, ICMP, EGP/GGP/IGP, and lately all sorts of other "P2P" stuff. It seems to me more of a mesh than a tree-like layer cake. Hmmm, perhaps TCP/IP is the first example of the success of "Open Source" - OSI docs were expensive and hard to get, TCP/IP was readily FTP-accessible. I suspect that most of the people writing the early Internet code didn't have copies of the OSI docs. (I had only a few of them) The prevalent attitude that I saw, both within the Internet community and in the Telephony/X.25 crowd, was that TCP/IP was a research experiment, and eventually the professionals would get the OSI spec completed, implemented, and TCP/IP would be forgotten. Then the customers decided to use what worked instead of waiting. Anyway, if I was looking for an OSI document I'd try to find Mike Padlipsky as a likely source of ancient documentation. /Jack Haverty, Point Arena, CA (ex-BBN, ex-Oracle) www.3kitty.org On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 17:28 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > There are references to 1978 versions of both X.200 and 7498. But I?ve > > not been able to find an actual copy of either. (Also, assuming a copy > > is available, do we still need to satisfy ITU/ISO distribution > > restrictions for these old drafts?) > > > I seem to recall having specification of the original 7-layer model come out > in 1976, but perhaps that was not the final version of that round of effort. > > > And as long as you have raised the subject, I will share with folks an > historical perspective that I've enjoyed about the effect that producing the > 7-layer model had: > > Before it existed, networking technical discussions among people meeting for > the first time usually took the first half of the meeting to agree on terms > of reference and the second half doing real work. > > The OSI 7-layer model was revolutionary. > > After it came out, similar first-time meetings consumed the first half, > complaining about the OSI model, and the second half using it. > > d/ > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Dec 4 20:20:06 2005 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:20:06 -0800 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: <1133748238.19050.32.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> References: <439397B7.8010309@dcrocker.net> <1133748238.19050.32.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> Message-ID: <4393BFF6.1020502@dcrocker.net> > . Eventually we gave up and just wrote code. yeah, it was rather interesting to watch efforts, in the late 80s, or so, to document the Internet architecture post-hoc. Depending on the documenter's predilections, they described a 3-, 4-, or 5-layer model. > In retrospect, the CCITT model was based on telephony, and the only Actually, I think that's not true. The basic model is rather richer than would be expected from what you describe. (I'll refrain from commenting on the detail they provided for it, and, well, ummm, the protocols specs that followed.) A number of times, we have needed a modeling construct for Internet work and the OSI model has had a good reference. While the details we lay on that reference are typically quite different, the concept is close. For example, they had the construct of a Convergence (sub-)Layer. We do all sorts of converging, but never really had terminology for it (which I will claim, on the theory that "IP-over-everything" is not a term one wants to take serious.) Similarly, the Presentation Layer is often a helpful point of reference, as is the Session Layer. > Hmmm, perhaps TCP/IP is the first example of the success of "Open > Source" - OSI docs were expensive and hard to get, TCP/IP was readily > FTP-accessible. Many folk have an experience along the lines of the following: Around 1996 -- the Internet had solidly gone global, but services were still iffy in many places around the world -- I go into the first cybercafe in Eastern Malaysia... on the island of Borneo. I asked to plug in my laptop, so I could retrieve email. Plugging in laptops is not part of cybercafe business models, in those days, so the staff person freaks. At just the right moment, their technical consultant comes in. Young Chinese guy who later intimidated the heck out of me -- we became friends -- as I learned more and more of his broad talents. While patiently sitting through boring presentations, he would turn out wonderful sketches, and he played a mean Chinese guitar. (Apologies, I don't remember what they are called.) Anyhow, I figure I need to get him to trust that I won't break his network, so I do a pretty straightforward, "Hi, my name is Dave Crocker. I have worked on Internet technology for awhile and I'd like to plug my laptop in to do a POP email pickup." So, I have hereby implied that I might legitimately know what I'm doing and he shouldn't worry. He considers this for a moment and says that he seems to recall that I wrote some RFCs. Wilds of Borneo. Random folk peruse RFCs because they feel like it. Peruse them enough to remember the names of random authors. Out of a couple of thousand RFCs as of then. They had a state-sponsored Internet infrastructure project that was doing quite good work. So they did more than just read the documents and remember names. So, yes, the open-access model is incredibly powerful. (For reference, he still checked to make sure I knew how to configure my Windows system.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Dec 4 20:26:36 2005 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:26:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: <1133748238.19050.32.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> References: <439397B7.8010309@dcrocker.net> <1133748238.19050.32.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> Message-ID: <4393C17C.6040904@dcrocker.net> > . Eventually we gave up and just wrote code. yeah, it was rather interesting to watch efforts, in the late 80s, or so, to document the Internet architecture post-hoc. Depending on the documenter's predilections, they described a 3-, 4-, or 5-layer model. > In retrospect, the CCITT model was based on telephony, and the only Actually, I think that's not true. The basic model is rather richer than would be expected from what you describe. (I'll refrain from commenting on the detail they provided for it, and, well, ummm, the protocols specs that followed.) A number of times, we have needed a modeling construct for Internet work and the OSI model has had a good reference. While the details we lay on that reference are typically quite different, the concept is close. For example, they had the construct of a Convergence (sub-)Layer. We do all sorts of converging, but never really had terminology for it (which I will claim, on the theory that "IP-over-everything" is not a term one wants to take serious.) Similarly, the Presentation Layer is often a helpful point of reference, as is the Session Layer. > Hmmm, perhaps TCP/IP is the first example of the success of "Open > Source" - OSI docs were expensive and hard to get, TCP/IP was readily > FTP-accessible. Many folk have an experience along the lines of the following: Around 1996 -- the Internet had solidly gone global, but services were still iffy in many places around the world -- I go into the first cybercafe in Eastern Malaysia... on the island of Borneo. I asked to plug in my laptop, so I could retrieve email. Plugging in laptops is not part of cybercafe business models, in those days, so the staff person freaks. At just the right moment, their technical consultant comes in. Young Chinese guy who later intimidated the heck out of me -- we became friends -- as I learned more and more of his broad talents. While patiently sitting through boring presentations, he would turn out wonderful sketches, and he played a mean Chinese guitar. (Apologies, I don't remember what they are called.) Anyhow, I figure I need to get him to trust that I won't break his network, so I do a pretty straightforward, "Hi, my name is Dave Crocker. I have worked on Internet technology for awhile and I'd like to plug my laptop in to do a POP email pickup." So, I have hereby implied that I might legitimately know what I'm doing and he shouldn't worry. He considers this for a moment and says that he seems to recall that I wrote some RFCs. Wilds of Borneo. Random folk peruse RFCs because they feel like it. Peruse them enough to remember the names of random authors. Out of a couple of thousand RFCs as of then. They had a state-sponsored Internet infrastructure project that was doing quite good work. So they did more than just read the documents and remember names. So, yes, the open-access model is incredibly powerful. (For reference, he still checked to make sure I knew how to configure my Windows system.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking From pgross at pgross.net Sun Dec 4 20:48:36 2005 From: pgross at pgross.net (Phill Gross) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:48:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jake, Thanks for the offer. It sounds like you have an interesting volunteer job, and very appropriate for these purposes. I'd love to get copies of the following papers: * "The OSI Reference Model and other protocol architectures", Danny Cohen and Jon Postel, IFIP 83, Paris, Sept 1983. * "A tutorial on Protocols", Louis Pouzin and Hubert Zimmerman, Proceeding of the IEEE, Vol 66, No 11, Nov 1978, Special issue on computer networks. * "The OSI Reference Model", John Day and Hubert Zimmerman, IEEE Proceedings, Vol 71, No 12, Dec 1983, Special issue on Open Systems Interconnection (OSI). * Zimmer, "OSI Reference Model..." from IEEE Transactions on Communications, April 1980. (from Craig Partridge) The Pouzin article is said to be one of the earliest to reference the OSI model. Craig provided the 1980 IEEE reference. Regarding actual standards documents, I'm looking for any copy of X.200 or ISO 7498 prior to 1984. I have the 1984 CCITT Red book that includes X.200. I've seen references to a 1978 "Gray Book" with X.200. If you have the Gray book, or if your Yellow book has X.200 and is earlier than 1984, then we have a score. Craig also gave the following ISO references from the 1980 IEEE article: * ISO/TC97/SC16 "Provisional model of open systems architecture", Doc N34, March 1978. * ISO/TC97/SC16, "Reference model of open systems interconnection," Doc N227, June 1979. Getting copies of any of the above would be a great help. Jack H, I've already contacted Mike Padlipsky and received the figures for his RFC 871 (1982). His figures are an interesting half circular representation of the three layer Arpanet model, which he adapted from an earlier Davidson/Postel paper (see below). I'd be interested to see if the Cohen/Postel paper above also has a version of the half-circle diagram. Scott B, thanks for the pointer to G.805. I'd already found that thread and discovered the truth about "layer networks" and conflation. :) If you come across 3-plane references prior to BISDN, let me know. Thanks to all who have provided references and insights. And, its great to hear from so many old friends and colleagues. Phill [Diagram above from Davidson/Postel/et al, "The ARPANET Telnet Protocol: Its Purpose, Principles, Implementation, and Impact on Host Operating System Design", Proc Fifth Data Communications Symposium, ACM/IEEE, Snowbird, Utah, Sept 1977.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11904 bytes Desc: not available URL: From day at std.com Mon Dec 5 05:43:26 2005 From: day at std.com (John Day) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:43:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: FW: internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1 Message-ID: > > > >From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org >[mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On >Behalf Of Phill Gross >Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:49 PM >To: 'Jake Feinler'; internet-history at postel.org >Cc: 'Paula Jabloner' >Subject: Re: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1 > >Jake, > >Thanks for the offer. It sounds like you have >an interesting volunteer job, and very >appropriate for these purposes. > >I'd love to get copies of the following papers: > >? "The OSI Reference Model and other >protocol architectures", Danny Cohen and Jon >Postel, IFIP 83, Paris, Sept 1983. > >? "A tutorial on Protocols", Louis Pouzin >and Hubert Zimmerman, Proceeding of the IEEE, >Vol 66, No 11, Nov 1978, Special issue on >computer networks. > >? "The OSI Reference Model", John Day and >Hubert Zimmerman, IEEE Proceedings, Vol 71, No >12, Dec 1983, Special issue on Open Systems >Interconnection (OSI). > >? Zimmer, "OSI Reference Model..." from IEEE >Transactions on Communications, April 1980. >(from Craig Partridge) > >The Pouzin article is said to be one of the >earliest to reference the OSI model. Craig >provided the 1980 IEEE reference. > The Pouzin article would have to be about the earliest reference, since the first version was produced in March of 78. >Regarding actual standards documents, I'm >looking for any copy of X.200 or ISO 7498 prior >to 1984. > >I have the 1984 CCITT Red book that includes >X.200. I've seen references to a 1978 "Gray >Book" with X.200. If you have the Gray book, or >if your Yellow book has X.200 and is earlier >than 1984, then we have a score. > Anyone with an SC16 archive should have them. I believe I have the first 300 or so documents on Microfiche somewhere. You are looking for SC16/N46, N117 and N227. These were the outputs of the Washington, 78 meeting; Paris, Oct 78; and London, 79; respectively. The DP version should also be around which would be Berlin 1980. The document went through a complete re-organization between 117 and 227. The Babbage Institute has the proto-version of that document. >Craig also gave the following ISO references from the 1980 IEEE article: > >? ISO/TC97/SC16 "Provisional model of open systems architecture", > Doc N34, March 1978. > >? ISO/TC97/SC16, "Reference model of open systems interconnection," > Doc N227, June 1979. > This is the London output document. >Getting copies of any of the above would be a great help. > >Jack H, I've already contacted Mike Padlipsky >and received the figures for his RFC 871 (1982). >His figures are an interesting half circular >representation of the three layer Arpanet model, >which he adapted from an earlier Davidson/Postel >paper (see below). I'd be interested to see if >the Cohen/Postel paper above also has a version >of the half-circle diagram. > >Scott B, thanks for the pointer to G.805. I'd >already found that thread and discovered the >truth about "layer networks" and conflation. :) > If you come across 3-plane references prior to >BISDN, let me know. > >Thanks to all who have provided references and >insights. And, its great to hear from so many >old friends and colleagues. Layering did not originate with the OSI model. The model really just wrote down what people were thinking at the time. There had been talk of these layers all through the 70s. Further questions on the OSI stuff let me know. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov Mon Dec 5 10:05:54 2005 From: adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Adrian J. Hooke) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:05:54 -0800 Subject: [ih] Protocol layering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051205100109.02debdf0@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> At 11:51 AM 12/2/2005, Phill Gross wrote: >1. Does anyone have pointers to or copies of pre-1984 drafts of the OSI >reference model (either X.200 or ISO 7498)? I already have the 1984 CCITT >Red book which contains X.200. I dug around a bit and found a NASA paper that I write circa 1978; the attached scan of one of its pages shows the "ANSI Reference Model for Distributed Systems" as it existed then - it was just four layers. Searching around the topic of "ANSI Distributed Systems Reference Model" led to the following possible lead: http://www.cbi.umn.edu/collections/inv/cbi00125.html#ansi ANSI/X3/SPARC Study Group--Distributed Systems "Reference Model" draft 4, January 31, 1978. (Box 19, folder 4) ///adrian Adrian J. Hooke Manager, NASA Space Data Standards Program NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ansi-model-ref-ajh-circa-1978.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 128185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From feinler at earthlink.net Mon Dec 5 15:45:47 2005 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:45:47 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3fbdc6b25eb4be33e7f87ed97a651799@earthlink.net> Re: Internet around the world and ain't it fun! I found an "Internet cafe" on the very rural, isolated Kangaroo Island off the coast of Australia. And thanks to NASA and NSF the internet went to Russia, Africa, South America, and Antarctica in the early days. I would also point out that the NIC bridged the gap in providing the protocols at cost to those who wanted to read them or implement them, but were not government contractors or grantees, and therefore did not have access to the early internet. As I recall a set of the CCITT documents cost more than a thousand dollars, and the TCP/IP protocols cost less than $50.. Interop also had a big role in spreading the word and showing attendees that TCP/IP really worked and that there were compatible products available for sale off the shelf. One of you guys should write the story of the "Great Protocol Wars." As an observer I found it fascinating. Phil, I'll get back to you on the items you requested. Cheers, Jake From pgross at pgross.net Tue Dec 6 14:53:23 2005 From: pgross at pgross.net (Phill Gross) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:53:23 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: FW: internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Thanks so much for the wealth of information. There is nothing like getting info from the source. Have I summarized the ISO documents in the list below correctly from your email? Can you fill in any of the question marks? Combined with the reference sent by Adrian Hooke, an interesting timeline emerges. The January 1978 ANSI doc shows a 4 layer model and presumably by June 1979 N227 has arrived at the familiar 7 layer model. It would be interesting to see the evolution in thinking and "reorganization" during that period that arrived at the 7 layer model. Jake, can you add the documents below to your search? Can anyone else add any other documents or comments to the timeline? Phill 1978 * ANSI/X3/SPARC Study Group--Distributed Systems "Reference Model" draft 4, January 31, 1978. * ISO/TC97/SC16, Doc N34, March 1978 "Provisional model of open systems architecture", Location? * "A tutorial on Protocols", Louis Pouzin and Hubert Zimmerman, Proceeding of the IEEE, Vol 66, No 11, Nov 1978, Special issue on computer networks. * ISO/TC97/SC16, Doc N46, Month? 1978, Title?, Washington * ISO/TC97/SC16, Doc N117, Oct 1978, Title?, Paris 1979 * ISO/TC97/SC16, Doc N227, June 1979, "Reference model of open systems interconnection", London (Reorganization between N117 and N227) 1980-1983 * Zimmer, "OSI Reference Model..." from IEEE Transactions on Communications, April 1980. * "The OSI Reference Model and other protocol architectures", Danny Cohen and Jon Postel, IFIP 83, Paris, Sept 1983. * "The OSI Reference Model", John Day and Hubert Zimmerman, IEEE Proceedings, Vol 71, No 12, Dec 1983, Special issue on Open Systems Interconnection (OSI). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From day at std.com Thu Dec 8 06:57:02 2005 From: day at std.com (John Day) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:57:02 -0500 Subject: [ih] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mod=E8le_OSI_=3A__Fwd=3A_FW=3A__internet-hist?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ory___=09=22Digest=2C_Vol_11=2C_Issue_1=22?= In-Reply-To: <00a001c5fbce$c279e3d0$f767c353@battu95ydq9ihs> References: <6.2.5.6.0.20051207085002.01d317e0@noos.fr> <00a001c5fbce$c279e3d0$f767c353@battu95ydq9ihs> Message-ID: At 9:09 +0100 2005/12/08, D. Battu wrote: >Hi ! I am not really familiar with discussion list management, but >from what I heard here, I can tell you the few of what I remember >from the years 1970 and after. > >The references (*) from Pouzin, Zimmerman, and Marty are relevant >for me and these persons can still be contacted directly (Marty is >still in function in FTR&D in Rennes). They certainly be pleased to >explain the own views !!! > >There was first a conflict between ITU and ISO/CEI about the >structure of information transfer in the 1970 (as far as I could >hear atthat time). Each entity had its own job and few cooperation >was possible between the two groups, so the scheme know as "ISO >model" came late after several long discussions (see also EURAS and >SIIT2005 web sites, and you could ask MM. Sheriff and Kai Jacobs >about). There was at least one draft of a model by CCITT SGVII before the two projects were made joint between ISO and CCITT. The main difference was that CCITT tried to use the technology to define who owned what box. For example, this is why an X.29 PAD was defined as part of the network rather than as a low function host. > >Secund, the main problem came, on the French side, from the >necessity to explain X.25 at a time where Fax and Minitel were >existing but not structured into layers !!! Actually it did. V.21, LAPB, X.25 PLP, and the application. The problem was that CCITT did not want to admit to the requirement for a Transport Layer. A transport layer broke the "beads on a string" model where they could claim sole ownership of applications. With a transport layer, they couldn't claim that only they could provide the application. >Chronology suggests that the global view on the information layers >system has been a long work(probably ten years before some success). >In 1978, came the first draft of X.25 and the first contract for >Transpac (X.25 for France) and then Euronet (X.25 for Europe). In >these two contracts, the technical addendum was explaining how to >structure the information and the lawyers were upset when reading >such contractual implementation. (Because X.200 was not available at >that time, everything needed to be explain !). In 1979, early 1980 >the X.75 standard has been published as a draft, the final document >been approved in the middle of 1980. The first X.25 came out of the 1976 CCITT books. It had major holes. It basically only described what the network had to do not the user. > >Then, the French administration decided to clarify the status of the >"information transfer" file and created a special group named >"Architel" (for architecture for telecommunications) in which were >working the persons I have mentionned in (*) - We spend a lot of >time and money for that, and we modified the Minitel in such a way >that it could comply with all the ISO model standards, which means >that 1983-1984 was the end of the Architel work and that probably an >agreement has been reach between ISO and ITU-T. Yes, this was the theft of the Session Layer and the creation of TP0. This all came down at a WG meeting in Paris in the late summer of 83. It later turned out to be one of the big mistakes in the upper layer architecture, since the mechanisms in Session were not "re-entrant." Upon further reflection, I would have to check the archives but this may have been 82, not 83. Because by the ISO 83 meeting, the work was much further along. We already had sufficient drafts of Session protocols to fix them so that the upper 3 layers could be implemented as a single state machine. (The birth of the clueless test! ;-)) >But the battle has been very hard between the delegations and >because of the acidity of the conflict, bad jokes have been >performed inside the standards and unfortunately heavy errors have >been accepted officialy inside the ISO/ITU papers which still >remains (heavy errors in X.25 mainly !). (Don't repeat it !) The lesson of course is don't accommodate old technology. This was true in the OSI work and also in the Internet work: Just look at how many warts are still hanging around because of the TIPS! ;-) What is really criminal is that some of those warts are now considered Best Practice! >Thank you to you to not dispatch my answer around you - there is >still hostility in the air somewhere ! >(As we usually say in France " this one who say the truth should be killed !") History should never be killed or we are doomed to repeat it. Take care, John