HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olav@lulea.trab.se (Olav Lindberg)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: ISODE-PEPSY
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:39:37 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Aurorum 6, 951 75 Lulea, Sweden
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 + PL4

We are investigating the possibilities of using the PEPSY program of the ISODE
for encoding/decoding.

Now my questions are:

* Is there anybody out there who has tried using the PEPSY program, and if so:

- Are there any restrictions/problems/bugs that you have come across?

- Any other information that could be useful?


 Thanks in advance!!

*************************************
  Olav Lindberg
  TELIA RESEARCH
  Aurorum 6
  951 74 Lule}
  SWEDEN

*************************************
From: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: was ISO Documents Cause OSI Failure?
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:08:33 GMT
Reply-To: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK

In article <BtHJrB.H50@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> husemann@camelot.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Dirk Husemann) writes:
>Hmm, shouldn't standards designed to provide OPEN SYSTEMS be available to
>everyone who want's to have a look (I'd agree to handling & printing charge,
>but currently getting ISO docs is almost as expensive as getting drugs - or so
>they say, I'm not on drugs, rather I'm on ISO docs 8=)

My local public library has copies of all ISO documents which have made
it to BSI standards (which includes all the OSI ones, SGML, esoteric 
things like DOA, etc. etc.). Note, _public_ library not university library.

They don't have RFCs.
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: sch@sequent.com (Steve Hemminger)
Subject: OSI == second system syndrome
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:49:40 GMT

More fodder from the OSI dicussion...

Some times it looks like OSI protocols suffer from second system syndrome.
Second system syndrome is the problem described in the "Mythical Man
Month", that the second version of any software is: slower, bigger, full
of lots of useless features, late to market and never the success of the
first version..

The question in my mind is will OSI ever be:

* A mainstream technogly that works off the shelf.  Like TCP, SNA,
  Netware, X.25, PC, Mac

* Widely used as the protcol of choice, rather than when the choice is
  forced upon the user.

* Available at a low cost and simple level of technogly.  Other networking
  technolgy's at least appear simpler because they make assumptions about
  usage, topolgy, addressing, etc...

* User friendly.  Exchanging X.400 mail addresses is not friendly.
  Having to have full information about every other machine you want to
  talk to is not friendly (i.e Network, Transport, Session, Application
  ...)

Right now the chances look dim on this side of the Atlantic, espcially
now that the desktop PC/Mac is a fact of life.  The desktop revolution
may be the biggest nail in OSI's chances in the long run.

-sch

-- 
  ----
 |   #|    Stephen Hemminger   <sch@sequent.com>
 |    |    Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.		
  ----
From: pmg@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Protocol Research Group)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Alternate Bit Protocol modeled by GSPN.
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:28:14 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


Hi Ajin,

There is the GSPN model for the Alternating Bit protocol in the paper

"Performance Analysis Using Stochastic Petri Nets", by Michael K. Molloy
in IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. c-31, No.9, 1982.

PMG group.
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: wai@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Julian Wai)
Subject: Standard for data dictionary
Organization: Murdoch University
Date:  2 Sep 92 01:04:37 GMT

Is there a standard for data dictionary by the ISO or any other bodies?
Any information will be appreciated.

Thanks
julian
wai@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: mm@hela.iti.org (Michael McFarland)
Subject: Net. Mgt. w/ Expert Systems
Followup-To: mm@iti.org
Summary:  Info wanted
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:04:12 GMT


I'm trying to find out what rules-based network management
systems are available.

I'm also interested in finding out if anyone has had any 
experience in using network management expert systems.

For any information at all I would be very grateful.
From: ics.ralph@Control.Com (Ralph Mackiewicz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: OSI Failure? (MMS and TCP/IP)
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:59:18 GMT
Reply-To: ics.ralph@control.com
Organization: Industrial Computing Society

Response to Andrew McRae posting of 30 August 92:

Thank you for restating my position more eloquently.  Your point about
the fact that TCP/IP doesn't address the same types of issues that MMS
does is what I was trying to get across.  The reason I am writing about
these issues is that I see many people who are hopelessly negative about
all aspects of OSI and forget that there is some value.  The OSI process
resulted in an application standard that addressed manufacturing issues.
This is one area of OSI where OSI solves real problems and is useful.
TCP/IP, and its associated application layer protocols (FTP, etc.) do not
address these issues.  Therefore, OSI has value in spite of the fact that
Novell and FTP provide better file sharing mechanisms.

You are right in pointing out that there is no technical reason why MMS
cannot be run over TCP/IP (RFC1006 specifies how to run OSI application
protocols over TCP).  However, all MMS implementations to date have been
using OSI transport stacks.  We have a version of MMS that will run over
TCP/IP in the Sun SPARC environment (SunNet OSI).  Unfortunately, we are
the only ones offering this....there is no one else to talk to.  On the
OSI side there are many products available with MMS.  This fact alone
makes MMS over OSI more suitable for most systems.

I will also concede that OSI transport technology requires more processing
and memory than TCP/IP and this can be a problem in many systems that are
short of these resources.  I also believe that over time this will improve
to the point where it may not be an issue.  The improvement will come in 
the form of better OSI implementations and better computing platforms.
This is where we are putting our efforts because we just do not see any
support for widespread use of MMS over TCP/IP (I apologize in advance for
the use of the word "better" here).

Ralph Mackiewicz, SISCO Inc.
2943439@mcimail.com or ics.ralph@ics.org
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: colville@socs.uts.edu.au (John Colville)
Subject: Re: Alternative Encoding Rules
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 25 Aug 92 07:12:10 GMT

jccw@poobah.mitre.org (John C. C. White) writes:

>I seem to recall that there was some work going on regarding
>alternatives to the Basic Encoding Rules (BER), to provide a
>more compact (or at least different) transfer syntax. Can anyone 
>point me to some documents or people that can bring me up to
>speed on this?  Or tell me that I'm dreaming, and BER is all
>anyone will ever need?

>John White
>MITRE Bedford, Mass
>jccw@mitre.org

The JTC are working on a number of other Rules, which are all
derived from BER to improve the performance of the transfer syntax.
They are described in the Addenda/Amendments to IS8825/CCITT X.209.

The new sets are:

DER (Distinguished ER) which basically imposes transfer orderings on some
classes of fields

PER (Packed ER) which 'squeezes' down the BER patterns

LWER (light Weight ER) which is designed for faster processing, by requiring,
for example, that all strings start on word boundaries.


Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier)
Subject: Re: OSI Failure?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 14:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.091153.25702@cl.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>I have yet to see a definition of Novell's protocols even at the informal
>level that the Internet uses, let alone the level that OSI and SNA are
>defined [...]

Such a definition exists, and is available from Novell in exchange for some
sum of money.  It's part of their effort to get NetWare ported to every
known operating system.  I've heard of it being available in the company of
C code that implements the protocol; perhaps it is also available separately.

However, I believe this to be irrelevant.  Many large vendors have produced
proprietary protocols with expensive licensing fees.  That's the whole point
of standard protocols -- jointly develop a mutually useful protocol, then
let the world use it for little or no fees.

Maybe the trick for the OSI standards would be to offer educational editions
at a discount, direct from the ISO to the university bookstore.  It's an
established marketing technique in other industries, so why not international
standards?

-- 
"Beware of programmers who     Stephen Trier
 carry screwdrivers."          Network Services Engineering, IRIS/INS/Telecom
       Leonard Brandwein       Case Western Reserve University
                               trier@ins.cwru.edu
From: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: Why OSI and not SNA (was: Re: OSI Failure?)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:21:06 GMT
Reply-To: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK

In article <1992Aug26.110545.8560@ugle.unit.no> harald.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.091153.25702@cl.cam.ac.uk>, ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>|> The only question in my mind is "Why OSI and not SNA".
>
>That's the easiest one to answer in this whole thread.
>Patents.
>Licensing fees.
>Subject to change without notice.
>FUD.
>IBM.

Sure. I'd go for OSI too. But I was responding to a poster from Novell.
As it happens, I think SNA beats all other proprietary technologies hands
down. As far as formal specification goes it is unmatched even by OSI.

>Yesterday I read that IBM has 8 patents on APPC Network Node (something like
>an SNA "router"), and will demand licensing of all vendors of such products

I think you're confusing the protocols with the products. I don't 
_believe_ there's anything to stop anyone patenting a particular kind
of OSI router that works in a particular way.
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson)
Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:44:41 GMT

mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:


>M Kuhn, Uni Erlangen, DE or
>Markus Kuhn, Computer Science, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Germany

>or something else and after a few seconds your mailer should know
>everything about my mailer (e.g. address, document types allowed, ...).
>E.g. test the de DUA that comes with ISODE.

Define a few seconds. I guarantee that you will find non-obscure, non-rare
cases which will take well over 30 sec to complete. At current rates of
growth, coverage will be under 20% of the Internet-at-large for some time
to come. 

It works well for self-managed domains, self-consistent arenas like .de
which is a heavily structure/managed network. It works poorly in the
anarchy of the Internet.

lightweight protocols/services win hands down. The community would have
been better served by a targeted service for mail location/delivery and
not a catch-all. 

-George
--
                         George Michaelson
G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre      | There's no  market for
                         University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
Phone: +61 7 365 4079    QLD Australia 4072       |          -Bertold Brecht
From: jira@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Ajin Jirachiefpattana)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Performance Modeling Tools.
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:57:11 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: jira@elc2.lat.oz.au

Hi,

I just wonder if there are any performance modeling tools apart from
GSPN and queueing networks. I am currently doing research on
Performance Evaluation of Communication Protocols, and I would like
to know what performance modeling tool is suitable for this application,
and if I would like to use more than one tool, how I can integrate all
of these tools to model and evaluate the performance, and if I need to
decompose it in the case that this system is too complicated, what
decomposition techniques I should learn.

Thanks in advance.

Ajin Jirachiefpattana,
Department of Computer Science & Computer Engineering,
Bundoora, Vic., 3083.
Australia.
jira@latcs1.lat.oz.au
From: mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:48:31 GMT
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen

sch@sequent.com (Steve Hemminger) writes:

>* User friendly.  Exchanging X.400 mail addresses is not friendly.
>  Having to have full information about every other machine you want to
>  talk to is not friendly (i.e Network, Transport, Session, Application
>  ...)

This is solved by OSI with the X.500 directory services in a very elegant
way. Unfortunately, most people don't know about it and still worry
about ugly mail adresses. With the information provided in my
 .signature, you should be able to enter something like

M Kuhn, Uni Erlangen, DE or
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Germany

or something else and after a few seconds your mailer should know
everything about my mailer (e.g. address, document types allowed, ...).
E.g. test the de DUA that comes with ISODE.

Markus

---
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
-A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
-even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-
From: omahony@swift.cs.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: Request for Information: X.435
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:18:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin

>>It is my understanding that X.435 is the EDI interchange standard, but  
>>that is all I know. Where could I get more info?

Besides the standards dox X.435 and F.435, there is a good book by
Richard Hill entitled "EDI and X.400 using Pedi : An Implementors
and Users Guide"

It is available for uk#49+3 pp or US$88
from 
Technology Appraisals Ltd.,
Grove House,
551 London Road,
Isleworth,
Middlesex TW7 4DS
UK  ph: (081) 744 1155



Donal O'Mahony
Computer Science Dept
Trinity College
Dublin 2
Ireland
From: ics.ralph@Control.Com (Ralph Mackiewicz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: OSI Failure?
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: ics.ralph@control.com
Organization: Industrial Computing Society

In response to Ran (atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil):

I stand by what I said.  The companies I was referring to that used MMS
because they were looking for vendor independent solutions were not
vendors.  They were users and we have many customers who are not General
Motors.  I agree that GM is the reason that many vendors of MMS implement
it.  And, because that is the only reason, they will never be successful
selling the technology.  What I wrote is true.  Our sales of MMS are
increasing not because our customers want to promote OSI because it would
be the politically correct thing to do.  They are buying it because it
DOES solve problems for them that other networking technologies (like 
TCP/IP) don't solve.  The reason that other networking technologies don't
solve these problems is because they are focused on networking issues
that do not relate to the functions provided by MMS.

let me point out that I will be the last person to suggest that if you
need a network for sharing files, E-Mail, or terminal connectivity that 
you should only use an OSI based network.  Most of the arguments I have
seen in this dicussion group against OSI are based upon the premise that
anyone who is in support of OSI is also in support of OSI over any other
technology regardless of the specific functions that are expected of the
network.  WRONG!  The simple truth is:  MMS is currently the only non-
proprietary device to computer networking protocol that has been implmented
in any commercially available products.  It is in use today.  It works.
And it uses OSI technology.  This last fact doesn't make MMS useless. It
just makes it harder to sell because uninformed people will assume that 
just because TCP/IP, Novell, Banyan, etc. do a better job at file transfer,
E-Mail, etc. than OSI, then TCP/IP must also do a better job for reading
and writing variables in a controller, uploading and downloading programs
in a controller and reporting device faults....and this is not true.
If anyone other than my company would commit to supporting MMS over TCP/IP
using RFC 1006, only then would TCP/IP become a viable alternative to OSI
for performing these device communications functions in a non-proprietary
manner.

Ralph Mackiewicz, SISCO Inc.
2943439@mcimail.com or ics.ralph@ics.org
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:21:03 GMT

In article <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
> sch@sequent.com (Steve Hemminger) writes:
> >* User friendly.  Exchanging X.400 mail addresses is not friendly.
> >  Having to have full information about every other machine you want to
> >  talk to is not friendly (i.e Network, Transport, Session, Application
> >  ...)

> This is solved by OSI with the X.500 directory services in a very elegant
> way.

Only if you have cheap real-time access to the database. X.400 and X.500 is
a solution for rich folks or service bureaus. It doesn't scale well to low
bandwidth loosely-coupled systems.

As X.400 gets more common, I'm getting more and more bounces. Worse, I'm
getting bounces from replies to messages originated in X.400 land, where
the gateway didn't put an unambiguous address in the sender field. Because
there is no such thing as an unambiguous address in X.400.

> -A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
> -even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-

Well, that's why a loosely coupled system is useful, and the basic problem
with X.500.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: Re: X.500 (was: second system syndrome)
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:43:30 GMT

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>In article <BtuI66.56H@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
>> I am especially interested in using X.400/X.500 over periodic dialup
>> connections with slow lines (e.g. 9600bits/sec). If you can't bring the
>> user to the database in realtime, then bring the database to the local system.

>Well, that sounds like a lot of volume.

I estimate that every user will need about 300-500 bytes in the database
if you replicate only the most important attributes (i.e. no photos etc.).
I.e. you get about 3 million entries on a gigabyte disk. An initial download
of this database should need about a day on a LZW compressed ISDN B-
channel. The update traffic may be perhaps 1/1000 of the whole database
per week. This isn't perhaps unaffordable with tomorrows PCs ...
Of course the initial download must be possible in several steps!

Markus

---
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
-A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
-even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
From: mats@devildog.att.com (Matt Szela)
Subject: NETBIOS over TP4/CLNP and over TCP/IP 
Followup-To: mats@devildog.att.com
Summary: NETBIOS over TP4/CLNP and over TCP/IP
Keywords: NetBIOS
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:10:34 GMT

Folks,

I need to find more info on NETBIOS over TP4/CLNP and NETBIOS over TCP/IP.

What are the documents that discuss/specify NETBIOS service/protocol 
and any other related documents on NETBIOS over TP4 and over TCP??

Also how does TOP relate to NETBIOS and LAN MANager protocols??

Please send email to mats@devildog.att.com or post on this group.

Tx,

Matt

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Subject: Re: OSI Failure?
Reply-To: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 09:11:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.175150.22420@novell.com> donp@novell.com (don provan) writes:
> is all obvious once you've fully realized that there's nothing
> special about OSI products that makes them inherently better for
> customers.  Once you realize this, the question is no longer "Why

The only question in my mind is "Why OSI and not SNA". At the very least
a protocol should be well-defined. I have yet to see a definition of 
Novell's protocols even at the informal level that the Internet uses,
let alone the level that OSI and SNA are defined and which allow multiple
vendors to build cooperating products. (Yes, I know there are interoperability
problems. This is what OSI conformance testing centres are for.)
From: alavalle@seqp4.sequoia.com (Art LaValle)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: ISO Procedures
Summary: Selection Criteria
Keywords: ISO, Standards
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:23:43 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In article <BtA8Jx.EMC@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
> 
> Who are the people responsible for technical decisions in the standards making
> process? How are they selected? How is guaranteed, that they represent the
> creme-de-la-creme of academic and industrial experts? Is everything organized
> more in a democratic or aristocratic way? If it is intended to be a democratic

People responsible and selection:

The title of "expert" is the handle given to technical representatives to various ISO committees. 
These representatives are National Standards Bodies members chosen to represent their National Body at
International Meetings -i.e in the USA the National Body is ANSI.

Members of National Bodies are usually representatives from Industries that have joined the
National Body and pay dues (at least this is the case with ANSI).

How a representative from a particular company is chosen to represent that company at a National
Body meeting is up to the individual company. The usual case is someone who is aware of the
strategic direction of the company and is capable of influencing the Standards forming
process in favor of his/her particular companies direction.

This seems self-serving but what the heck it's business..


Guarantee that creme-de-la-creme attend:

Nothing is guaranteed in this world :-)

In the case of Standards, we are not dealing with "Rocket Science" but are suppossed
to be adopting "tried and true stable technology". In many cases an International Standard
will reflect a defacto Standard that's been around for quite some time. At least in my humble
opinion this should be the case.


Democracy:

In my experience, committee decisions are by consensus.
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso