From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a081a8b1 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DA2149B8B9; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 04:22:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FD39B8A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 04:22:13 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="vdg6glck"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 150A49B8A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 04:22:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D8529B8A0 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 04:22:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id q2-v6so6926716lji.10 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:22:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5TB5BM5/zCCx06xLDMwWimldiooSU3rN9GuO8zG1fhI=; b=vdg6glckB06jVuVrRBvepzEn7N/9hKBjpOe0PTToPSftztTDdZcEHkRm5eOR2NNZ66 x9gp45SIf44AXZz95HO2AaYjk9n6Y8Ofrr+t8qGpRz7c0Yxpj0v1qFkw8Ho02aDLK6hk 0nRIUs8SXGhSB8ZMc/4PkXm9dMEXn0theQGy4sVl3AY306DUX7726LNm5Dk5oxw5G6tm 4TEpsjVza66PMDlGm+a2u6rzUAAumPTW3Y4vNQy4Ob6dveyv/roz62GhDjJpTIWOk1Gu jeVNP1Q9dPm9vi9upFRYbAtrWHC91zM0Z0oXRHx22lWqSdMxHhieMX2H1d4RWR4I1Bjy aNtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5TB5BM5/zCCx06xLDMwWimldiooSU3rN9GuO8zG1fhI=; b=atWOq7aYpewdzYXIiH69fzDDlQ6WR6MHMhZAyhAn5WpvDmWZFhSPM6LDltqe7Fogub +jZxmZ3fEG6GhSZVVe3Awnnw5K71p5cMuO8NZgI39N+GuaBnNux6WhIvRJsJlyyUFp4V bJqUqOtMeNdHKWLi35/8nRrXSpg3t6A5gUgAPAWUnbPcrWlbARugg7d5rWe17GQZKVYq 13K5pSQQF7NgU5ReJuok2u9xmT6ujAz+R9SWwWGBmh6DFXtWZEBTpT52Y33iR92QOobg 9wlJa1bAdgzUSWqSq8o9kHOeeBDEqpJXUmE7nDAkXXRH0AjpXHyHKHRn+EjBAONR1Hss vpZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaBZ32fgXCo7HMDMSNR+IXOoIUelA2vrWEQMKSgiZjf4N9hLxFw aM4YvbmXJ+bEcuqAea83Zij1PimohxSqJPd5GHg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib0g46Vi1vWBVTKIMJpnX1HKeuuX7qgVXtCzroVk64yYsma5EIzFz0sBZU8DGieVn7ik+Xxv8i+jcpZVvBn1/o= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5854:: with SMTP id x20-v6mr7219944ljd.31.1549477328482; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:22:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:3a11:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 10:22:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20190206174913.E518318C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190206174913.E518318C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> From: Paul Winalski Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:22:08 -0500 Message-ID: To: Noel Chiappa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 2/6/19, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > 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 > > I'm not sure this part is accurate: the two efforts were contemporaneous; and > my impression was they were trying to design the next step in networking, based > on _their own_ analysis of what was needed. That's my recollection as well. The OSI effort was dominated by the European telcos, nearly all of which were government-run monopolies. They were as much (if not more) interested in protecting their own turf as in developing the next step in networking. A lot of the complexity came from the desire to be everything to everybody. As is often the case, the result was being nothing to nobody. Phase V of DEC's networking product (DECnet) supported X.25 as an alternative to DEC's proprietary transport/routing layer. I had to install this on one of our VAXen so we could test DECmail, our forthcoming X.400 product. I remember X.25 being excessively complicated and a bear to set up compared to Phase IV DECnet (the proprietary protocol stack). -Paul W.