[ih] OSI and alternate realiv

[John Day]

As I recall, Videotex was in the works in SGVIII when the Europeans hatched the agreement to ditch the CCITT Reference Model effort and CCITT would develop jointly with ISO, around 1980 or 82. (a big mistake as I have said). SGVIII basically laid out their header format and drew lines where they wanted layers.

Of course, they didn’t want a Transport Protocol (or one they could ignore) because Videotex would be outside their monopoly and subject to competition, hence TP0. They also didn’t want anything to do with Presentation or the Application Layer.  They were the ones advocating for an API at Session Layer that when they got done with it had nothing to do with creating Sessions. Actually, giving SGVIII the Session Layer may have been part of the deal. It wasn’t a good idea but then I haven’t seen anything from ITU that was a good idea.

WAP was especially hilarious. The original Videotex was killed by technology moving faster than they thought, which was basically what killed WAP. You would think they would learn. But then I have always said that ITU plans for a window of opportunity 15 minutes in the future.

By your logic, am I to conclude that anything the PTTs backed was OSI? 

> On Mar 16, 2024, at 19:45, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Minitel had nothing to do with OSI.
> 
> except both were heavily backed by one or more PTTs
> 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:22 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> The PTTs were still stuck in the 20 year turnover of equipment and it was changing lot faster.
>> 
>> Minitel had nothing to do with OSI. It was already in the works when it started. That was how the Session Layer got stolen and why there was TP0.
>> 
>> What is even funnier was WAP was Videotex all over again and just as bad the second time around.
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 18:17, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com <mailto:bpurvy at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Even when they actually had the future up and running, they spurned it:
>>> 
>>> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to capitalize on it.
>>> 
>>> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were smoking!  ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe, e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>>>> 
>>>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > David,
>>>> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
>>>> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the development
>>>> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
>>>> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>>>> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
>>>> > severe limitation.
>>>> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as well
>>>> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably some
>>>> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25, but
>>>> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Cheers
>>>> > 
>>>> > Daniele
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>] On
>>>> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>>>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>>>> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>>>> > 
>>>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>>>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
>>>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>>>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
>>>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
>>>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>>>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>>>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>>>> > 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?
>>>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > David Sitman
>>>> > --
>>>> > 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
>>>> > 
>>>> > -- 
>>>> > 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
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>