Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)

Why? The details have faded from my memory, but the lower 2 layers of the stack (CLNP and TP4) I don't recall as being too bad. (The real block to adoption was that people didn't want to get snarled up in the ISO standards process.) It at least managed (IIRC) to separate the concepts of, and naming for, 'node' and 'network interface' (which is more than IPv6 managed, apparently on the grounds that 'IPv4 did it that way', despite lengthy pleading that in light of increased understanding since IPv4 was done, they were separate concepts and deserved separate namespaces). Yes, the allocation of the names used by the path selection (I use that term because to too many people, 'routing' means 'packet forwarding') was a total dog's breakast (allocation by naming authority - the very definition of 'brain-damaged') but TCP/IP's was not any better, really. Yes, the whole session/presentation/application thing was ponderous and probably over-complicated, but that could have been ditched and simpler things run directly on TP4. {And apologies for the non-Unix content, but at least it's about computers, unlike all the postings about Jimmy Page's guitar; typical of the really poor S/N on this list.) Noel