IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SOS & LDBP

Colin Robbins <c.robbins@xtel.co.uk> Mon, 16 March 1992 13:12 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00918; 16 Mar 92 8:12 EST
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24910; 16 Mar 92 8:14 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24905; 16 Mar 92 8:14 EST
X400-Received: by mta bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Mon, 16 Mar 1992 11:56:12 +0000
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 11:56:12 +0000
X400-Originator: osi-ds-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; bells.cs.u.401:16.02.92.11.56.12]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk ; Mon, 16 Mar 1992 11:56:11 +0000;
From: Colin Robbins <c.robbins@xtel.co.uk>
Message-ID: <"3798 Mon Mar 16 11:55:15 1992"@xtel.co.uk>
To: yeongw@psi.com
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <9203121319.AA00272@spartacus.psi.com>
Subject: Re: SOS & LDBP

   >Depending on resource and other
   >restrictions, implementors and users will have to decide on
   >their own set of tradeoffs: now they have three choices (LDBP,
   >the SOS and the full OSI stack), instead of one.

This is my main worry.
Instead of implementors all using one protocol, they can choose any 
one of three.  

So we now potentially get 3 set of products on the market, all aiming
to do the same thing - but they can not interwork with each other -
exactly what OSI was designed to avoid.

One protocol would be the best choice, but for techinal reason we have
decided a different lighterweight protocol is needed.  This suggests we
need two protocols.  Why do we need a third?

(I am not necassarily advocating dropping LDBP or SOS, but am
suggesting we make it clear in our own minds why both are needed)

Colin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email