-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it
[mailto:owner-ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it] On
Behalf
Of Steve Deering
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:51 PM
To: Marshall T. Rose
Cc: Keith Moore; Danny Cohen; vcerf(_at_)MCI(_dot_)NET;
cheshire(_at_)apple(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Marshall Rose
Subject: Re: [Hist Trivia] IP Protocol Layers
At 12:07 PM -0700 7/18/01, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
ps: many of us still use "router" instead of
"intermediate-system" and
"host" instead of "end-system", so i guess i have to
question just how
useful all that OSI stuff really was.
We used to use "gateway" instead of "router" (and a few still
do), and I always thought the change to the "router" term was
due to some sort of OSI political correctness. If not OSI,
who gets credit for imposing the "router" jargon on the IP
world? Was it the DEC folks (mostly Radia?)?
My memory is fuzzy, but I believe I deserve at least some of the blame.
Around 1980-81, I designed the "DECnet-SNA Gateway" and argued that the
term "gateway" ought to apply to something that converted one protocol
to another, rather than something which forwarded packets between
machines using the same protocol. I do know we used the term "router"
for DECnet layer 3 stuff as early as 1981. I don't think any OSI
political correctness was involved, since they used the somewhat more
formal and convoluted term "intermediate system", and DEC didn't go over
to the dark side until around 1984-5.
Steve
-
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist
of
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what
to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.