[ih] NIC, InterNIC, and Modelling Administration

[John Day]

>John Day wrote:
>>At 8:35 -0500 2011/02/18, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>John Day wrote:
>>>>At 7:14 -0500 2011/02/18, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>>You've said that before.  Can you elaborate with some examples 
>>>>>of where ISO has simply codified existing practice?
>>>Screw threads, highway signs, paper size, HDLC, Transport Layer, 
>>>Session Layer, Network Layer
>>>
>>>I was all set to buy "screw threads" - until I read the Wikipedia article on
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standardization
>>>
>>>Re. Transport, Session, Network layer: how can you say that with a 
>>>straight face, after all the recent discussion here?  (I don't see 
>>>an ISO number stamped on TCP/IP.)
>>
>>I figured you would take the bait.  ;-)
>>
>>TP4 was INWG 96 which was CYCLADES TS which had been operational since 1972.
>>
>>Network:  X.25 was an ISO standard that had been in use since 1976.
>>
>>Session:  Was lifted (for better or worse, mostly worse) from 
>>SGVIII Videotex standards that were built and operating in France.
>
>Ahhh.... the pick one from column A, pick one from column B, and see 
>if they fit together approach.  Which also neglects TP0-3, and as I 
>recall ISO-IP (excuse me, CLNP) was crammed in as an afterthought.

You are kidding!  CLNP was part of the plan all the time from day 
one.  It was the fight over CO/CL that put off starting.  Luckily 
there isn't much to it.  It also required getting the IONL in place 
so that the place of internetworking vs X.25 as SNAC was clear.

The only reason the US was participating at all was to have a 
connectionless network layer.  Good grief, what have you been smoking?

I thought say that.  First of all no one really cared about anything 
but TP4 the other were just the PTTs attempt to discourage the use of 
a Transport Layer. But if you must know:

TP0 came from SGVIII.
TP1 came from SGVII
TP2  was I believe from the UK colored books.
TP3 was some weirndess from the Germans.

>>
>>No there is no ISO number stamped on TCP.  That decision was worked 
>>out in an open process in IFIP WG6.1 prior to start of OSI, which 
>>chose a modified CYCLADES TS.
>Again, a political, top-down process - rather than one based on 
>moving something from experimental->recommended->mandatory status.

How do you figure?  IFIP 6.1 was hardly a top down process.  And 
hardly political. It was primarily the research networking people. 
Do you make this stuff up?

What part of operational since 1972 did you not understand?

CYCLADES was an experimental network doing network research.  There 
was a lot of experimentation with it, it was recommended.  No 
standards are mandatory.  That is why ISO is a *voluntary* standards 
organization and why ITU issues Recommendations not standards.

There was a perceived need for an international Transport protocol. 
Vint chaired it, right Vint?  There were a few proposals among them 
TCP, which was relatively new at the time.  None of them were very 
old. Since the concept of a transport layer was pretty new at the 
time.

I think you need to get your facts straight.

>>
>>As long as we are on the topic, all of the IEEE 802 standards are 
>>also ISO standards.  Ethernet was in use for close to 10 years 
>>before it was an ISO standard.
>Because IEEE is the protocol standards agent for ANSI which is the 
>US representative to ISO (if I have the terminology correct).  IEEE 
>802 is a pretty good example of starting with competing products, 
>and then creating a standard that forces every vendor to modify 
>their stuff just ever so slightly.

Sometimes.  Yes, you are correct.  Although I have no idea why IEEE 
bothers.  Ethernet is an ISO standard.  What you describe is very 
much the case in IEEE today.  It was less so at the beginning but 
even there one had competing products:  Ethernet, token bus, token 
ring.  It was what a lot of people wanted but it was the processs 
produced.

John