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=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 17cf0300 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E2D279B8AF; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:17:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B739B8A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:16:39 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="qX8fxiNM"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C029A9B8A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:16:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com (mail-qk1-f196.google.com [209.85.222.196]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9C9C9B8A0 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:16:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id y16so4706645qki.7 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:16:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pDkml0HPQZsR09F69i+4JoXAFYrFdNd9Hl2RppgYWoo=; b=qX8fxiNMo3MijlY4296UEUY6Lq+epvm2d6MPddoRujDf7IxKkko4bv4M1EH2QKQsJH qqspNJL5obR6QJUmmR7XraeOYTjL2/NZsuNkHIJ3ZppaXNpKRA6fQjRoCAXUaOlAXLk/ zNpvI+X0OS/SALvakcGPTT8lnXnocdQ4InC7mtT7M/3ssadXjElAUAOfmMMmbcm/BvHP +73v1sXkIVCxoRl6rKk54nj467IqDCZFHJHNSbIR8wiK7IVjr1s7D2k9Qr63HgxHnYpT ht/hAHFTa8P0JXW9gjN8ZhoFfJVaLMBak3XXBVQHvbE5JeHrHNMOIahSoL+oqwWHMSFa Sq1A== 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; bh=pDkml0HPQZsR09F69i+4JoXAFYrFdNd9Hl2RppgYWoo=; b=AjVKQ61sjv+lyTSrZI3YzMko07XH/9yTU/rap5M4+bRzMz9g4rQQTvR3CqMCDpOkhY 1AKECY7Fb7oDON6eaD0o0SimuIkZIMsB/3tfYTMPBPRMJFXFenvo6wk5Jk/1dp6bl97a WvJP918QgQ/TpSIpl3GXIqXrJj1k7YjSxpvhsv8cD16KWD9hSSsgWR50I1FBA/CW8onj 2dkl2h2twVzaNRVRS1L1BzVWGgOAnjSZp1W+7ZfArXSNq8miv38nn0+Oxe7GW1xc+E9f uz3GAhINBJLtY+pmWsltyD9gbX6f44LrARRkYmA8rQaX/h+897lCpPWVEvsRxOi88KLq PnPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubtYoK6P7wY/aj2+qJ5bP5atXNrQoyNJWwWChqbmntCJgsrPMnU HPIcxeCB9oXZFzzu2EEe5le1wUWT6qKBo6VZCMQXS1WjRtw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYdqrfGWJ4r/tK2+lP1LDGDq7FFT69qIRY6qXXoEij93+Cnis/xEMyBXd2gwmXWZ01mK4avx0bizaiE++RJgSU= X-Received: by 2002:a37:6e86:: with SMTP id j128mr8569555qkc.46.1549473395493; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:16:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190203150237.A869418C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 10:16:24 -0700 Message-ID: To: Noel Chiappa Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000053eaff05813ce315" 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 Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000053eaff05813ce315 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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 --00000000000053eaff05813ce315 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > From:= Warner Losh

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank goodness= that didn't
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > become standard, woof!)

Why?

Posters like this :). OSI was massively over specified...

oops. Hit the list limit.

Posters like this:


which show just how over-spec= ified it was. I also worked at The Wollongong Group back in the early 90= 9;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 performa= nce once we got it going. Almost bad enough that we didn't show it at t= he trade show we were going to....=C2=A0 And that was just the lower layers= of the stack plus basic name service. x.400 email addresses were also some= what overly verbose. In many ways, it was a classic second system effect be= cause they were trying to fix everything they thought was wrong with TCP/IP= at the time without really, truly knowing the differences between actual p= roblems and mere annoyances and how to properly weight the severity of the = issue in coming up with their solutions.

So x.4= 00 vs smtp mail addresses: "G=3DWarner;S=3DLosh;O=3DWarnerLoshConsulti= ng;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 bee= n a long time and google had no good examples on the first page I could jus= t steal...) The x.400 addresses were so unwieldy=C2=A0that a directory serv= ice was added on top of them x.500, which was every bit as baroque IIRC.

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

Warner
--00000000000053eaff05813ce315--