At 03:46 PM 9/30/02 -0700, Ari Ollikainen wrote:
At 1:30 PM -0700 9/30/02, Joe Touch wrote:
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I think the main goal is to compete with
OSI's much more defined model.
What's wrong with the OSI model?
See Padlipsky's "Elements of Network Style", again available in print.
It's as relevent now as it was when it was written in 1984:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0%2D595%2D08879%2D1
Or, at the very least, read RFC 871 ...
[[
Perhaps the most significant point of all about Layering is
that the most frequently-voiced charge at NWG protocol committee
design meetings was, "That violates Layering!" even though nobody
had an appreciably-clearer view of what Layering meant than has
been presented here, yet the ARMS exists. We can only guess what
goes on in the design meetings for protocols to become members of
the ISORM suite (ISORMS), but it doesn't seem likely that having
more layers could possibly decrease the number of arguments....
]]
... seems kind-of apposite ;-)
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK(_at_)NineByNine(_dot_)org>