Re: Call for participation -- Is OSI really useful?

["Peter Williams,Sterling Software" </S=williams/OU=atlas/O=NASA/PRMD=ARC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com>]

   >   John Day <[e-mail]> writes:
   >>
   >>For those of you familiar with Chicago politics, if the Internet is the
   >>dirt road being paved as the NII, the contractor building it is putting
   >>too much oatmeal in the concrete.  The potholes will be so bad, it will
   >>need repaving before it is finished.


Id urge those who have invested in OSI products and services not to
lose their nerve. There are an impressive number of complete GOSIP
solutions being presented to the DoD DMS tender, founded upon a fast
evolving realignment of the US IT industry in which bid consortia are
forging and deforging at a quite remarkable rate. What works and it available
off the shelf is now being shaken out by the buyer's market; it doesnt
require hand-wringing of high-politics.

I believe the strategy of the DoD buyer is to give the OSI donkey one
last kick; otherwise drop it very publicly. So now is the moment, if
you believe that the Dod IT requirement is that shared by many a
money-spining corporate solution.

	The companies and individuals who stand most to gain from the Internet
	emergence as a commercial force know one thing well - that the nature
	of the business telematics companies are is - global (not regional)
	service provision.

The world is likely to be competitive set of global data networks much
like the broadcasting industry; perhaps 6 bigs ones, and their many
affilates, each competing for _sectorial_ business, based upon the
qualities of their offerings.

	The model of the backplane works fine in the brave new world, as the
	means to ensure that the consumer stays in charge, can defeat the evil
	phone companies plans to ensnare them with a teletex terminal, minimise
	the possibility of being reduced to one particular set of service
	options offered by the various protocol suites offered by all the global
	net provider(s) for their own profit maximisation and minimal
	liability, and by their being at least one means by which info can be
	transported between the communities to ensure full connectivity.
	
	I believe I agree with Bob Stover - OSI is for the interconnection of
	systems, being available based upon minimal technical agreement over
	the mere adoption of the (profiled) standard by both parties.

	The only counter example Ive seen to this is the work of DEC DCA, in
	which, yes, an effective business-oriented OSI distributed system is
	now purchasable, should you be willing to pay.
	
	Perhaps consider the example of ICL - it made far more money selling
	its EDI VAN (using backbone X.400) services than ever it did selling
	X.400 "solutions" directly. So much so, it managed to sell the
	"sectorial market" it created!

Finally, its worth noting that the IT service industry that went down
the OSI route is, from NASA's own peculiar mixed-world vantage, getting
to grips finally (sigh!) with what its all about - finding a service
market, a pricing formula, and structuring the competitive response of
mixed IT and telecomm provider groups to variously meet the *global*
challenge.  This is not the subject matter of standards committees,
researchers, or even developers of implementations; is do or die time
in the IT market, simply. This is no time to fret, or loose confidence,
at the formation of the vicious service competition from the Internet
(service) providers! Respond by forming new inter-company ventures; and
grab a piece of the commercial cake.

Peter.