The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / Atom feed
* Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
@ 2019-02-03 15:02 jnc
  2019-02-03 16:51 ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jnc @ 2019-02-03 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs; +Cc: jnc

    > From: Warner Losh

    > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness that didn't
    > become standard, woof!)

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
  2019-02-03 15:02 [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) jnc
@ 2019-02-03 16:51 ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2019-02-03 23:33 ` [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters)) Mantas Mikulėnas
       [not found] ` <CANCZdfq5PM9jFEi9=geC+CTnveXs5CprN7b+ku+s+FYzw1yQBw@mail.gmail.com>
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS @ 2019-02-03 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2204 bytes --]

On 2/3/19 8:02 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 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.)

I too am curious.  I've got no first hand experience.  (I'm not counting 
getting a couple of SimH VAXen talking to each other over DECnetIV.)

> 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).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by naming a node vs network interface.

But I do know for a fact that in IPv4, IP addresses belonged to the 
system.  Conversely, in IPv6, IP addresses belong to the interface. 
This has important security implications on multi-homed systems.

> 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.

I don't understand what you mean by using "names" for "path selection". 
Or are you referring to named networks, and that traffic must pass 
through a (named) network?

That's probably why I don't understand how routes are allocated by a 
naming authority.

> 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.

I've seen various parts of session and / or presentation applied to IPv4 
(and presumably IPv6) applications.  Some people like to say that 
session is one of those two (arguments ensue as to which) grafted on top 
of the application layer.  So, even that's still there in the IP world, 
just in an arguably different order.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4008 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters))
  2019-02-03 15:02 [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) jnc
  2019-02-03 16:51 ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
@ 2019-02-03 23:33 ` Mantas Mikulėnas
  2019-02-04  0:10   ` Arthur Krewat
                     ` (2 more replies)
       [not found] ` <CANCZdfq5PM9jFEi9=geC+CTnveXs5CprN7b+ku+s+FYzw1yQBw@mail.gmail.com>
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mantas Mikulėnas @ 2019-02-03 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS, Noel Chiappa

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:03 PM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>     > From: Warner Losh
>
>     > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness that didn't
>     > become standard, woof!)
>
> 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.)
>

With apologies for the outburst:

When I first subscribed to tuhs several years ago (even though I don't
really belong in here; I'm younger than even Linux, much less any of
the Unixen), I *very much* enjoyed reading the various stories about
UUCP, about Sun, about X11, VMS, ARPAnet – often first-hand tales, no
less.

So I don't know what counts as 'signal' on this list versus 'noise',
but I'd much rather read a million posts about OSI, CLNP and other
networks – a history lesson and information that's been getting scarce
in general – than kill/mute yet another thread full of generic "boo M$
Windoze" drivel that I can already find on Reddit.

Thanks,

-- 
Mantas Mikulėnas

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters))
  2019-02-03 23:33 ` [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters)) Mantas Mikulėnas
@ 2019-02-04  0:10   ` Arthur Krewat
  2019-02-04  0:54   ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2019-02-04  2:23   ` [TUHS] Signal/noise Warren Toomey
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Arthur Krewat @ 2019-02-04  0:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On 2/3/2019 6:33 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
>
> With apologies for the outburst:
>
> When I first subscribed to tuhs several years ago (even though I don't
> really belong in here; I'm younger than even Linux, much less any of
> the Unixen), I *very much* enjoyed reading the various stories about
> UUCP, about Sun, about X11, VMS, ARPAnet – often first-hand tales, no
> less.
>
> So I don't know what counts as 'signal' on this list versus 'noise',
> but I'd much rather read a million posts about OSI, CLNP and other
> networks – a history lesson and information that's been getting scarce
> in general – than kill/mute yet another thread full of generic "boo M$
> Windoze" drivel that I can already find on Reddit.
>
>

I concur. However, discussions of how many necks Jimmy Page's guitar had 
were pretty much way off topic. I mean, really, THREE? Led Zeppelin was 
slightly before my time (I'm 53). But who doesn't know it was only two?

;)


art k.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters))
  2019-02-03 23:33 ` [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters)) Mantas Mikulėnas
  2019-02-04  0:10   ` Arthur Krewat
@ 2019-02-04  0:54   ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2019-02-04  2:23   ` [TUHS] Signal/noise Warren Toomey
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS @ 2019-02-04  0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1919 bytes --]

On 2/3/19 4:33 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> When I first subscribed to tuhs several years ago (even though I don't 
> really belong in here; I'm younger than even Linux, much less any of the 
> Unixen),

FULL STOP

I see no reason for you to not belong here.

I too am younger than most of the things discussed on this list.

But that doesn't some me from participating ~> discussing ~> learning. 
Nor do I think it should stop you.

Just be mindful of where your roots are or aren't.

After all, Unix collectively (including Linux) is doing the wrong thing 
and going the wrong way if it turns people away that want to learn about it.

Resume.

> I *very much* enjoyed reading the various stories about UUCP, about Sun, 
> about X11, VMS, ARPAnet – often first-hand tales, no less.

I do too.

I also enjoy being able to discuss things with people as I'm reading 
about various technologies elsewhere.

That being said, I don't know that TUHS is the best place for some 
non-Unix related things.  That's what the COFF mailing list is for.  ;-)

> So I don't know what counts as 'signal' on this list versus 'noise', 
> but I'd much rather read a million posts about OSI, CLNP and other 
> networks – a history lesson and information that's been getting scarce 
> in general – than kill/mute yet another thread full of generic "boo M$ 
> Windoze" drivel that I can already find on Reddit.

I'd suggest COFF if you aren't subscribed.  I'd also suggest the cctalk 
mailing list.

Also, if you've not read it, I HIGHLY suggest "Where Wizards Stay Up 
Late - The Origins of the Internet".

Finally, doing.  Lots of doing or trying.  Even if you find out that 
it's wrong.  That's gaining experience that I think makes it easier to 
learn from.

comp.os.vms is another good place to watch ~> read ~> learn.

> Thanks,

:-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4008 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-03 23:33 ` [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters)) Mantas Mikulėnas
  2019-02-04  0:10   ` Arthur Krewat
  2019-02-04  0:54   ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
@ 2019-02-04  2:23   ` Warren Toomey
  2019-02-04  2:37     ` Larry McVoy
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren Toomey @ 2019-02-04  2:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

> So I don't know what counts as 'signal' on this list versus 'noise',
> but I'd much rather read a million posts about OSI, CLNP and other
> networks – a history lesson and information that's been getting scarce
> in general – than kill/mute yet another thread full of generic "boo M$
> Windoze" drivel that I can already find on Reddit.

Warren's protocol for off-topic material: let it slide for a day or two,
then politely ask people to move it to the COFF list when it doesn't
veer back to the Unix direction :-)

Cheers, Warren

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:23   ` [TUHS] Signal/noise Warren Toomey
@ 2019-02-04  2:37     ` Larry McVoy
  2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2019-02-04  2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren Toomey; +Cc: tuhs

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:23:32PM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> > So I don't know what counts as 'signal' on this list versus 'noise',
> > but I'd much rather read a million posts about OSI, CLNP and other
> > networks ??? a history lesson and information that's been getting scarce
> > in general ??? than kill/mute yet another thread full of generic "boo M$
> > Windoze" drivel that I can already find on Reddit.
> 
> Warren's protocol for off-topic material: let it slide for a day or two,
> then politely ask people to move it to the COFF list when it doesn't
> veer back to the Unix direction :-)

And I must say you have done a great job of handling stuff going off 
course.  I don't mind a little wander, this list reminds me a lot of
Usenet around 1985 or so.  Not a ton of people but most are pretty
darn interesting.  So your policy of letting it wander a bit seems
just right to me, yeah the Jimmy Page guitar thing was way off track
but it wound down fairly quickly.

I agree completely with Mantas' comment about "drivel that I can
already find on Reddit."  The technical content level for programmers
on reddit seems pretty lame.  Though the one that really puzzles me is

https://news.ycombinator.com/

That place is called "Hacker news" and the level of decent hacker
content is amazingly low.  Once in a while there would stuff like
the Netflix writeup of how they got to 200Gbit/sec on a one core
server (with the data coming up to user space to be encrypted,
and doing it with 1Mb/s per socket, that's 200,000 sockets running
in parallel).  That was an amazingly impressive accomplishment 
and the sort of thing I'd like to see on Hacker news but I rarely
do.  As in once every 10 years or so.  I stopped reading it.

So go you, Warren.  You have the right touch for the list and while
I hope you continue to do so for decades, maybe think about picking
out someone who seems like a younger you as a backup.  I like this
list a lot.

Cheers all,

--lm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:37     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
  2019-02-04  3:26         ` Warner Losh
                           ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bakul Shah @ 2019-02-04  2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: tuhs

On Feb 3, 2019, at 6:37 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 
> And I must say you have done a great job of handling stuff going off 
> course.  I don't mind a little wander, this list reminds me a lot of
> Usenet around 1985 or so.  Not a ton of people but most are pretty
> darn interesting.  So your policy of letting it wander a bit seems
> just right to me, yeah the Jimmy Page guitar thing was way off track
> but it wound down fairly quickly.

I have said this before (or at least thought it!) but I, and I
suspect some others, think of TUHS much like comp.unix.wizards
of the old.

Though Jimmy >PAGE< would certainly fit TUHS :-)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
@ 2019-02-04  3:26         ` Warner Losh
  2019-02-04  3:26         ` Dan Cross
                           ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2019-02-04  3:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bakul Shah; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 7:55 PM Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2019, at 6:37 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> >
> > And I must say you have done a great job of handling stuff going off
> > course.  I don't mind a little wander, this list reminds me a lot of
> > Usenet around 1985 or so.  Not a ton of people but most are pretty
> > darn interesting.  So your policy of letting it wander a bit seems
> > just right to me, yeah the Jimmy Page guitar thing was way off track
> > but it wound down fairly quickly.
>
> I have said this before (or at least thought it!) but I, and I
> suspect some others, think of TUHS much like comp.unix.wizards
> of the old.
>
> Though Jimmy >PAGE< would certainly fit TUHS :-)
>

So would Jimmy SWAP.

Warner

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1434 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
  2019-02-04  3:26         ` Warner Losh
@ 2019-02-04  3:26         ` Dan Cross
  2019-02-04  4:55         ` Dave Horsfall
  2019-02-04  6:20         ` Jon Steinhart
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dan Cross @ 2019-02-04  3:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bakul Shah; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:55 PM Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> Though Jimmy >PAGE< would certainly fit TUHS :-)
>

Well, I guess it depends on the SIZE of Jimmy Page.

And...Does he go to 11? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBiJ-K0IpDA

        - Dan C.

(I'm sorry; I know I really shouldn't but Spinal Tap is such a cultural
reference amongst Unix people....)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 826 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
  2019-02-04  3:26         ` Warner Losh
  2019-02-04  3:26         ` Dan Cross
@ 2019-02-04  4:55         ` Dave Horsfall
  2019-02-04  6:20         ` Jon Steinhart
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2019-02-04  4:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Bakul Shah wrote:

> I have said this before (or at least thought it!) but I, and I suspect 
> some others, think of TUHS much like comp.unix.wizards of the old.

That's pretty much how I think of it (until the filthy spammers trashed 
the joint, of course, there being no authentication in those days, because 
there was no need for it; if there was a problem child, you merely picked 
up the phone or sent a short email to the site admin: end of problem[*]).

> Though Jimmy >PAGE< would certainly fit TUHS :-)

Well done, sir :-)  Perhaps we need a list for Old-Unix-Lovers-Into-Rock?

[*]
With exceptions; one ISP merely had an auto-responder on their abuse 
address ("He's gone"), but that's OT (ask me privately, if anyone cares).

-- Dave, the anti-spammer Unix-loving ageing hippie

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Signal/noise
  2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
                           ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-02-04  4:55         ` Dave Horsfall
@ 2019-02-04  6:20         ` Jon Steinhart
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jon Steinhart @ 2019-02-04  6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Bakul Shah writes:
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 6:37 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > And I must say you have done a great job of handling stuff going off 
> > course.  I don't mind a little wander, this list reminds me a lot of
> > Usenet around 1985 or so.  Not a ton of people but most are pretty
> > darn interesting.  So your policy of letting it wander a bit seems
> > just right to me, yeah the Jimmy Page guitar thing was way off track
> > but it wound down fairly quickly.
>
> I have said this before (or at least thought it!) but I, and I
> suspect some others, think of TUHS much like comp.unix.wizards
> of the old.
>
> Though Jimmy >PAGE< would certainly fit TUHS :-)

Yeah, I was really wanting the poster of George Goebels playing his two-headed VAX.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
       [not found] ` <CANCZdfq5PM9jFEi9=geC+CTnveXs5CprN7b+ku+s+FYzw1yQBw@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2019-02-06 17:16   ` Warner Losh
  2019-02-06 17:23     ` Larry McVoy
  2019-02-06 23:37     ` George Michaelson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2019-02-06 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Noel Chiappa; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:43 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 8:03 AM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
>
>>     > From: Warner Losh
>>
>>     > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness that didn't
>>     > become standard, woof!)
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Posters like this :). OSI was massively over specified...
>

oops. Hit the list limit.

Posters like this:

https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/20190203_215836.jpg

which show just how over-specified it was. I also worked at The Wollongong
Group back in the early 90's and it was a total dog on the SysV 386
machines that we were trying to demo it on. A total and unbelievable PITA
to set it up, and crappy performance once we got it going. Almost bad
enough that we didn't show it at the trade show we were going to....  And
that was just the lower layers of the stack plus basic name service. x.400
email addresses were also somewhat overly verbose. In many ways, it was a
classic second system effect because they were trying to fix everything
they thought was wrong with TCP/IP at the time without really, truly
knowing the differences between actual problems and mere annoyances and how
to properly weight the severity of the issue in coming up with their
solutions.

So x.400 vs smtp mail addresses:
"G=Warner;S=Losh;O=WarnerLoshConsulting;PRMD=bsdimp;A=comcast;C=us" vis "
imp@bsdimp.com"

(assuming I got all the weird bits of the x.400 address right, it's been a
long time and google had no good examples on the first page I could just
steal...) The x.400 addresses were so unwieldy that a directory service was
added on top of them x.500, which was every bit as baroque IIRC.

TP4 might not have been that bad, but all the stuff above it was kinda
crazy...

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3362 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
  2019-02-06 17:16   ` [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) Warner Losh
@ 2019-02-06 17:23     ` Larry McVoy
  2019-02-06 23:37     ` George Michaelson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2019-02-06 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Noel Chiappa

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:16:24AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In many ways, it was a
> classic second system effect because they were trying to fix everything
> they thought was wrong with TCP/IP at the time without really, truly
> knowing the differences between actual problems and mere annoyances and how
> to properly weight the severity of the issue in coming up with their
> solutions.

Perfectly stated.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
  2019-02-06 17:16   ` [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) Warner Losh
  2019-02-06 17:23     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2019-02-06 23:37     ` George Michaelson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: George Michaelson @ 2019-02-06 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Noel Chiappa

Alive and well in LDAP as a syntactic form. So, strongly alive in
functional systems worldwide, and in X.509 certificates.

As a typed entity in email addresses? NOPE.

-G

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:17 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:43 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 8:03 AM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>     > From: Warner Losh
>>>
>>>     > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness that didn't
>>>     > become standard, woof!)
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>
>> Posters like this :). OSI was massively over specified...
>
>
> oops. Hit the list limit.
>
> Posters like this:
>
> https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/20190203_215836.jpg
>
> which show just how over-specified it was. I also worked at The Wollongong Group back in the early 90's and it was a total dog on the SysV 386 machines that we were trying to demo it on. A total and unbelievable PITA to set it up, and crappy performance once we got it going. Almost bad enough that we didn't show it at the trade show we were going to....  And that was just the lower layers of the stack plus basic name service. x.400 email addresses were also somewhat overly verbose. In many ways, it was a classic second system effect because they were trying to fix everything they thought was wrong with TCP/IP at the time without really, truly knowing the differences between actual problems and mere annoyances and how to properly weight the severity of the issue in coming up with their solutions.
>
> So x.400 vs smtp mail addresses: "G=Warner;S=Losh;O=WarnerLoshConsulting;PRMD=bsdimp;A=comcast;C=us" vis "imp@bsdimp.com"
>
> (assuming I got all the weird bits of the x.400 address right, it's been a long time and google had no good examples on the first page I could just steal...) The x.400 addresses were so unwieldy that a directory service was added on top of them x.500, which was every bit as baroque IIRC.
>
> TP4 might not have been that bad, but all the stuff above it was kinda crazy...
>
> Warner

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-03 15:02 [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) jnc
2019-02-03 16:51 ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
2019-02-03 23:33 ` [TUHS] Signal/noise (Was: OSI stack (Was: Posters)) Mantas Mikulėnas
2019-02-04  0:10   ` Arthur Krewat
2019-02-04  0:54   ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
2019-02-04  2:23   ` [TUHS] Signal/noise Warren Toomey
2019-02-04  2:37     ` Larry McVoy
2019-02-04  2:57       ` Bakul Shah
2019-02-04  3:26         ` Warner Losh
2019-02-04  3:26         ` Dan Cross
2019-02-04  4:55         ` Dave Horsfall
2019-02-04  6:20         ` Jon Steinhart
     [not found] ` <CANCZdfq5PM9jFEi9=geC+CTnveXs5CprN7b+ku+s+FYzw1yQBw@mail.gmail.com>
2019-02-06 17:16   ` [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) Warner Losh
2019-02-06 17:23     ` Larry McVoy
2019-02-06 23:37     ` George Michaelson

The Unix Heritage Society mailing list

Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/tuhs

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.tuhs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox