[ih] OSI and alternate reality

[John Day]

Catching up.

The core OSI Protocols were:
Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
(Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
TP4 for transport.
Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.) 

The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
FTAM - for file transfer
JTAM - for Job Transfer
CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
TP - for Transaction Processing.
CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
> 
> :-)
> 
> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>> 
>> The PTTs never got (and still don’t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>> 
>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>> 
>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn’t get what was going on.
>> 
>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>> 
>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html