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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 058e0352 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 23:38:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6AE059B8B3; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:38:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAE19B8A4; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:38:15 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="eLjLrvLS"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8EAF19B8A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:38:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com (mail-it1-f194.google.com [209.85.166.194]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44B89B8A0 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:38:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id a6so10368441itl.4 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:38:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z45RQp28CynCGndT2SM2+560HJ9ZEeJBbV/wdfbJ7+A=; b=eLjLrvLSnWlQDvfuRHtJDN8LlkvaIzYbtNZ2a19nOup1jIb0pxji1KKCWd7dCo33wa KJ/j6ljxP3wj1NFZCzRvQ8j48g6ZbY0PQYVq3CHwtzz+xAxoQykVYhjnOGnqVtc253mT S0412EEeO/x+UkW6WY1iwIbyQtXcTyQHwCuZ7l5ylt8CbjnyAViSqscrH0j5Ooxqo0LY Hu+/quxO1O1PHmTQYBtp69/sm/9xKr9XUunM1OdvmS08dD0+DtiJ+EwAA8xcqNUDGkQq 2OeIq81bgsWig2WEPn2hQZzfwM1rY7l3Vn/ldXYEFxnaZ7SppQW1SBHxtbcGAaRqTyPQ hZPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z45RQp28CynCGndT2SM2+560HJ9ZEeJBbV/wdfbJ7+A=; b=YpIgyzY4yEJU6rVZCYgo1NmWtMRaMabzctIhqT0/erAMNRBlPjfLS5FQA27MCWQUIa 27mcOV64lL3qQHHkTS2S1FDJK5bKCWX8hq7r6g/Ugwx7Ys1fBHxO8Kjni17/g9CkqNoy 70qBEUKAJrSfAAYA+IL0KsMenE42utqO/cX5L3cT/C9IGsjjD5IfnETQRY1moIZ98eFT o7dbjgwOydjz8JenN2EfWmhCYnweKZarLuYyeTuYtyc5pXwagHYfUDQV/pZwVWF7l2Rp U+RATBElkie3oIfbyqdpxVJxTh2xJJ2OUHoTsWdMB//sMCqA9wxwXuILPrknxGMITI8A ejIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub4EmLssLqNe+uhfNhxe/dt/R2h0UEtpRs+734G05LPY7Xvi/9+ zctB7hBcvsj13X3NszSgfZ+VEQ5KW/B33qYNZ0Mme/jW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZnp0JtakdBeLAlKR/IADPZg+3wdnWJ4G2B/qCBxB2F7QrJW0ifZamfvPYS157KZ4v2/kBTMvClfRsHwdQUlwg= X-Received: by 2002:a24:440a:: with SMTP id o10mr3725269ita.63.1549496289095; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:38:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190203150237.A869418C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: George Michaelson Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:37:57 +1000 Message-ID: To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society , Noel Chiappa Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" 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 wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:43 PM Warner Losh wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 8:03 AM Noel Chiappa >> >>> > From: Warner Losh >>> >>> > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness that did= n'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 Wollongon= g Group back in the early 90's and it was a total dog on the SysV 386 machi= nes 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 jus= t the lower layers of the stack plus basic name service. x.400 email addres= ses were also somewhat overly verbose. In many ways, it was a classic secon= d system effect because they were trying to fix everything they thought was= wrong with TCP/IP at the time without really, truly knowing the difference= s between actual problems and mere annoyances and how to properly weight th= e severity of the issue in coming up with their solutions. > > So x.400 vs smtp mail addresses: "G=3DWarner;S=3DLosh;O=3DWarnerLoshConsu= lting;PRMD=3Dbsdimp;A=3Dcomcast;C=3Dus" 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 cr= azy... > > Warner