[ih] Fwd: [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't

[Miles Fidelman]

Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      > IEEE Spectrum just published online, titled "OSI: The Internet That
>      > Wasn't"
>
> TCP/IP's head start meant that at point X, when the race began (for pretty
> much any X), it had a bigger user community, and that was a huge advantage.
>
> I mean, the average user didn't give two hoots about whether the TP0 .. TP4
> siblings were duplicative, or whether the IETF process was more effective than
> ISO's, or whatever; they just wanted to use the network to communicate. And
> there were a lot of people on the Internet already... So when they had to
> decide which community to join (AKA which protocol family to bring up), the
> answer was fairly obvious.
>
>
Just to add to that a bit, I remember all the hoops that the MILDEPS 
went through to make sure that the TCP/IP stack could still be used, 
despite the OSI mandate coming down from the top (I was at BBN doing 
MILNET architecture at the time - supporting both DCA and various IT 
commands in the Air Force and Navy, plus the occasional system 
procurement that we subbed on).  Sure, all the RFPs went out requiring 
OSI protocol support, but they ALSO required continued TCP/IP support.  
As I recall, it was a rare vendor who delivered a working OSI stack.  
(Parenthetical note: I'm convinced that Wang went from the Army's main 
computer vendor, to out of business, because they kept stalling on 
providing a TCP/IP stack, much less an OSI one - they just didn't want 
their stuff to interoperate, and it cost them.)

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra