RE: SOS & LDBP
"Michael A. Petonic" <petonic@hal.com> Tue, 17 March 1992 17:24 UTC
Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00444; 17 Mar 92 12:24 EST
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12851; 17 Mar 92 12:25 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12828; 17 Mar 92 12:25 EST
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.20751-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 17 Mar 1992 14:42:23 +0000
Received: from hal.com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA20393; Tue, 17 Mar 92 09:42:08 -0500
Received: from halaus.hal.com ([148.57.160.129]) by hal.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10721; Tue, 17 Mar 92 06:42:07 PST
Received: from daisy.hal.com by halaus.hal.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21151; Tue, 17 Mar 92 08:39:15 CST
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 08:39:15 -0600
From: "Michael A. Petonic" <petonic@hal.com>
Message-Id: <9203171439.AA21151@halaus.hal.com>
Received: by daisy.hal.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16052; Tue, 17 Mar 92 08:42:35 CST
To: Dan Shia <dset!shia@uunet.uu.net>
Cc: ulcc.ac.uk.p.furniss@uunet.uu.net, "uunet!mhs-relay.ac.uk!jan.stranger" <mhs-relay.ac.uk!jan.stranger@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb>, hpangrb.an.hp.com!jackh@uunet.uu.net, cs.ucl.ac.uk!osi-ds@uunet.uu.net, cos.com!bbiage@uunet.uu.net, spartacus.psi.com!yeongw@uunet.uu.net
Subject: RE: SOS & LDBP
References: <9203170735.AA00809@dset>
Reply-To: "Michael A. Petonic" <petonic@hal.com>
X-Mailer: VM 5.31 (beta) under Epoch 4.0
On March 17, 1992 (02:35:20), Dan Shia duly wrote: > >>In contrast, the primary thrust of SOS is the definition of an >>integrated ROS/ACSE/presentation/session stack that will offer >>OSI-like services to application protocols. Although three of the > >We see two major technical problems with OSI: > >1) the complexity of the technology (ASN.1, ACSE, Presentation layer) > discourages the development of OSI applications. > >2) Although ULCC's X window on OSI implementation is extremely fast, > there is no efficient implementation of OSI > supporting general distributed computing comparable to TCP/IP based RPCs. I've seen all of these messages dealing with ACSE and the presentation layer. Are people taking into account the APLI (ACSE/Presentation Layer Interface) put out by Unix International? It would be yet another mistake if similar functionality were offered with differing APIs. Not that I'm necessarily advocating APLI, but it *is* an API. -pet- -- Michael A. Petonic petonic@hal.com +1-512-794-2855 HaL Computer Systems - Director of Custodial Services and Entertainment Austin, Texas "Two wrongs sometimes *do* make a right... in networking."
- SOS & LDBP Colin Robbins
- Re: SOS & LDBP Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: SOS & LDBP yeongw
- Re: SOS & LDBP Colin Robbins
- Re: SOS & LDBP yeongw
- RE: SOS & LDBP Dan Shia
- RE: SOS & LDBP Michael A. Petonic
- RE: SOS & LDBP Michael A. Petonic