Re: Call for participation

[[e-mail]]

Bob,

> 
> I think I have been "over quoted" a bit so maybe I should inject a few 
> thoughts ( I never use the term backplane architecture in reference to OSI. 
> Where did that come from?).

I must have heard someone else at the table use the word "backplane"
within the same conversation and I apologize profusely for misquoteing you.

>  I certainly agree with John that many of the 
> early contributors in the development of OSI had a good vision of where open 
> network architectures were going, even a few who worked for large 
> corporations.  Some major vendors had internal architecture work that 
> paralleled OSI and influenced its development.  At the same time all of the 
> major vendors had their own private communications / network architectures 
> with large installed bases.  Some large vendors saw OSI as common structure 
> that could be used to interface their private networks to other networks, 
> thereby protecting their currently installed equipment and in the longer 
> term providing a potential migration path to a native OSI capability.  It 
> was in this environment of needing to interconnect these dissimilar systems 
> that the work on OSI was started.  It would be incorrect to suggest that the 
> ability to provide a basis for gateway capabilities was the only initial 
> objective for OSI.  There were many objectives for OSI as well as many 
> interests involved.  As in any large project, this sometimes led to 
> additional complexity and not every decision perfectly satisfying everyone.
> 
> One of the objectives for the OSI architecture was the ability to 
> accommodate changing technology.  It is natural to have some change of 
> emphasis over the years to reflect the immense changes that have occurred in 
> our industry, both in terms of the make up of the equipment vendors and in 
> terms of the available technologies.  The interesting thing is that what 
> precipitated this discussion was the call for an OIW BOFmeeting to work on 
> accommodating precisely these requirements.  I don+t think anyone has lost 
> track of the objectives.  Possibly, the language in the announcement could 
> have been better stated.

I'm sure that you are correct. However, if I judge by the response, I would 
have to say that it has been useful to bring these discussions into the open. 
My point was simply that the existing RM with its seven layers may no longer 
be the best model for OSI. As we take a long hard look at the upper layers, 
and as we try to define requirements for what those upper layers should support, 
I don't think it is inappropriate for us to consider the model on which this 
work is based. To adopt a cliche, what's wrong with looking at the forest as 
well as the trees?

>  The current direction in much of the OSI work (in 
> which many of commentors are intimately involved) is toward providing more 
> flexibility and efficiency, such as this meeting on Upper Layer Efficiency. 
>  By providing more capability to select only the required functionality, OSI 
> has the potential of being applicable to an expanded area of usage, i.e., 
> providing efficient systems to support time critical applications in one 
> case and yet still providing the full functionality when needed for complex 
> applications.
>

 
> A number of groups are considering ways to make the standards process more 
> effective, e.g., faster, including wider participation, etc.  Any practical 
> suggestions toward that end would be appreciated.  However, I would hope 
> that the philosophical discussions would not detract from the primary reason 
> for the meeting, Upper Layer efficiency.
> 
>

I am concerned by your insistence on dictating the agenda of this meeting. 
Jim is the chair of the OIW UL SIG and he asked me to organize, sponser, 
and plan the agenda for this meeting. After looking at the initial contributions, 
I worked out the loose agenda that was incorporated into the call for participation. 
It was approved by senior members in good standing of the SIG. In my mind all 
of the topics are relevant to UL Efficiency. I hope that at the end of the meeting 
we have a strong understanding of what UL efficiency is, and where we want to 
concentrate our efforts in the future. The best thing I can do is to let the attendees 
tell me tomorrow what their greatest concerns are, and work from there. At this 
point, I have not received a confirmation from you on your attendance, but I can 
see that you have an interest in the meeting, so I will be sure to forward a copy of 
the meeting report to you at the conclusion of the meeting.
 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Bob Stover
> 
> 
> 
Likewise,

Laura Emmons