kre / Bill,
kre wrote:
I'd actually much prefer for OSI to win the "war of the
definitions". Rigid definitions tend to constrain thinking
to fit into the patterns defined. We're much better off
just having a rough idea what things mean when it gets to
this level.
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I for one, don't want to see OSI overtake in any way TCP/IP,
even in definitions.
I don't want to see TCP/IP be overtaken either.
Nobody's ever suggested this.
kre wrote:
It's the root of the Internet, not OSI or anything else.
Maybe TCP/IP needs to be more competative.
In terms of design, if you do TCP/IP *only* design, the TCP/IP model is
probably enough. However, the Internet is not only TCP/IP. Carriers, for
example, don't care much if their fiber transports TCP/IP or IPX or
voice or video or GigE.
And, there are complex multi-protocol networks that a) don't use only
TCP/IP and b) would not be able to use the TCP/IP model anyway because
it's too simple.
Also, the Internet can be used to tunnel other protocols. How would you
describe the subtilities of Token-Ring DLSW+ with the TCP/IP model?
I understand that we are the *Internet* Engineering Task Force. However,
I don't see the incompatibility between TCP/IP and the OSI model.
The bottom line is: lots of people are going to continue using the OSI
model. We don't need two different models.
Michel.