Re: A name for the TCP/IP Protocol Suite

[Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>]

Well, We have all known each other for a very long time, (Eva, Steve,
Marshall and I), and we have been through many of the same strategic
battles together in many different fora, working to make OSI interwork
with TCP/IP.

It is after all these years that I have come to the monumental
conclusion that a fundamental problem with OSI is that it is

		      "Installed Base Hostile".

It always seems to be "out of scope" for any OSI standards group or
implementor agreements profiling group to address any kind of
transition scheme or interworking scheme to ease the problems of
adding OSI to any installed base.  Now, at last observation, I even
find OSI profiling groups deciding that interworking between X.400 84
vs 88 is also out of scope (and thus is somebody else's problem).  It
does not help that they have very good arguments that "you cannot get
there from here".  This argument only solidifies my concern that OSI
is trying to kill itself.  (e.g., Something has to be done!)

Take away RFC987/1148 and RFC1006, and RFC1070 and what do you suppose
will happen to OSI?  Even the vaunted HP OSI network would stagger and
fall into a large set of isolated islands.  So would the DEC OSI
network.  Try to identify one such vendor owned OSI network that would
not collapse without TCP/IP!  Now try to find an equivalent non-vendor
network that is built with multivendor products?

So, what are we hearing here...

We are hearing that with a great deal of effort applied by the owners
of our large and growing non-OSI installed bases, they can get to live
the dream of OSI.  Well ... 

		     "OSI is a beautiful dream,
		      And, TCP/IP is living it!"

You may quote me on this!

Reality is that we are moving to a mixture of protocols in our beloved
Internet and any protocol proponents that do not help to make things
interwork with the installed base should understand that many of us
will view them as an enemy.  It is their war.

Now then, we note that the above mentioned RFCs were pushed along by
Marshall and/or Steve, along with many other efforts that were
designed to facilitate experiments and gain experience with
Coexistence and Transition to OSI.

For me, the object was always to help the market make its decisions
based on a more or less level (OPEN) playing field so we would wind up
with the best possible technology.  This during a period when many
others, especially on the OSI side, have been avidly trying to tilt
the market (CLOSE IT) to induce buyers to choose OSI even though the
product offerings have been (and mostly remain) inferior with higher
prices.

So, you ask... -What am I doing at the OIW, serving as the Technical
Liaison Chair, where one would suppose I would align with the OSI
pushers and market tilters?"  Well, I have always been an iconoclast,
and when I see an especially attractive false icon to clast, I can
really get into it.  "Something needs to be done!"

At this point, I am trying hard to get the OSI community to wake up
and recognize some few key things about reality.

1.  The Installed base (The ENEMY of OSI) is growing at a faster rate
    off a larger base than OSI is growing off its smaller base.  I do
    not understand how this leads to an OSI takeover.  Witness the
    flea crawling up the Elephant's leg with intent to kill.

2.  In the Installed Base community, there have been many moves to
    accommodate OSI (where it has been accommodated) while the OSI
    community has generally not even held out a hand.  GOSIP, in case
    you have not noticed, is not a helping hand.  (It is a stick
    dressed up to look like a carrot!)

3.  The OSI community has generally acted and reacted as though this
    is a zero sum game, where-in anything good that happens to the
    installed base is bad for OSI, and vice versa, and the game is for
    one to drive the other out, win, lose, or draw.  Political
    Correctness says that I am going to be severely chastised for
    these remarks by some in the OSI community.  In my recent
    re-election as TLC Chair, my penchant for speaking out like this
    was pointed out as a good reason to vote me out.  I won, so
    perhaps some OIW participants see some wisdom in what I am saying
    and doing.  I note that the OIW has finally come around to using
    internet mail to do its work, though some OSI folks would love to
    restrict us to using OSI protocols only.

4.  The Internet community has made genuine efforts to embrace and
    accommodate the OSI stuff, and OSI has been found to be very
    intractable in many cases.  Witness the difficulties in deciding
    how to deal with ORAddressing, etc.  None-the-less, efforts
    should continue, but it would be nice if the OSI camp could find
    ways to be more helpful.

5.  The OSI infrastructure that is required is not forthcoming in any
    reasonable time.  I know this all too well because I have been at
    the forefront of many the efforts to put it in place.  We still do
    not have MHS Management Domain Name registration in /C=US/, after
    almost two years of meetings.  We are finally closing on the
    concepts, but the operational infrastructure is still a ways off.

6.  So, I expect the market to continue making its decision, even
    though the playing field has been tilted by GOSIP.  In the end, I
    expect that we may see that tilting the playing field has only
    drawn the OSI camp into delivering checklist software, while the
    TCP/IP camp has been forced into highly competitive behavior, and
    has thus managed to stay ahead of the power curve by directing its
    energies toward productive quality improvements.

This set of ideas is what I am trying to alert the OSI community to
understand!  That GOSIP (and now IGOSS which combines the mandatory
forces of several mandating agencies, but does not harness any new
productive or competitive powers) will not do much to make OSI
competitive.  It will mostly increase the pressure on vendors to offer
checklist software, in order to meet threshold requirements.  (e.g.,
the big orange stick is only getting bigger.)

The OSI crisis that is identified in what Marshall says, and in what I
am saying, is a real fact of life.  If OSI does not get its act
together and begin to seriously compete, it is just dead meat.

It is good to see Steve Hardcastle-Kille working to crank up the ISODE
Consortium to work on making OSI competitive.  He certainly
understands the problems of interworking with the installed base and
will hopefully organize the ISODE Consortium to focus on the issues of
Coexistence and Transition.  What we don't need is yet another
shoulder to the OSI Mandating Game.  We Need Winning Competition.

What we need is for more vendors to work on this same problem, perhaps
even by joining the ISODE consortium to help make it happen.

But, my main message is that OSI has to make it in the marketplace,
and to do that it must accommodate the installed base, and co-opt the
installed base to build on it.  It is silly to proceed on the basis
that what OSI needs to do is drive out the installed base, as though
this is a revolution.  "War is Hell!"  What we need is evolution.

In the meantime, I must advise my strategic planning clients that
GOSIP is not a strategic issue on their worry list.  The future of OSI
and GOSIP will be decided in the marketplace.  I now advise my clients
that they only need to continue buying Internet stuff that is here now
and works.  If OSI is any good, the market will force vendors to build
bridges, gateways and tunnels to the installed base, and to interwork
with the installed base, or OSI will fail.

What is the strategic value of getting out in front of OSI?

Of course, there is no reason to avoid some experimental OSI
installations, just to be sure you know where the bodies are buried.

Don't take our word for it, go try it yourself.  

Best...\Stef