HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donp@novell.com (don provan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: OSI Failure?
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:30:34 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California

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".

OSI and TCP/IP products solve different problems than SNA products.  I
see very little overlap between those two markets.  To the extent they
overlap, it's because TCP/IP and OSI can do the same job as SNA.  I
don't recall anyone (until now?) thinking that SNA products could do the
job that OSI and TCP/IP products do.

OSI and TCP/IP, on the other hand, solve exactly the same problems.
Technically, their markets overlap exactly.  Politically, though, some
people have used governmental force to inflict the various GOSIPs on
the market, creating a niche where OSI products can be sold without
competition from the TCP/IP market.

>Novell's protocols even at the informal level that the Internet uses...

If you knew me a little better, you'd know it's laughable that you'd
try to draw me into defending Novell's protocols.  Anyway, i'll brush
you off by saying that the IPX protocol suite solves problems in yet
another market, so it's as irrelevant to the conversation as SNA.
Feel free to argue for as long as you want about whether or not IPX is
a good solution for its market, although the people in this news group
probably aren't very interested.
						don provan
						donp@novell.com
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: rbach@bnr.ca (Richard Bach)
Subject: Info on Async HDLC wanted
Followup-To: Richard Bach (rbach@bnr.ca)
Keywords: HDLC, Async, datalink, RS-232 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:15:33 GMT

I'm looking for a standard asychronous RS-232 data link protocol 
for use in a transaction processing application on a point
to point dedicated link.  Error detection and auto-recovery
mechanisms are important.

I have heard that there is an asynchronous HDLC protocol as
defined in ISO 3309-1984/PDAD1 - "Addemdum 1: Start/Stop 
Transmission".  I have thus far been unable to obtain
a copy of the ISO document but an still trying.  

If any one has info on async HDLC they could share with me or
knows if there is a software implementation, I would  
appreciate the input.  Or perhap you know of some other
suitable prtocol.  Please reply to:

+---------------------+---------------------+
|  Richard Bach       | BNR Inc.            |
|  rbach@bnr.ca       | Richardson, Texas   |
+---------------------|---------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: tonyg@spock.retix.com (Tony "Salty Dog" Goulding)
Subject: OSINET X.400 Interoperability database?
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:30:14 GMT

The July issue of EMMS - Electronic Mail and Micro Systems said that
OSINET has released its database of all products that have been
successfully tested for interoperability by its members in North
America.  Does anyone know whether this can be be reached via telnet, 
or pad, etc???
Thanks
Tony.

-- 
Tony [All views expressed are mine - if anyone is to blame its me]
==================================================================
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.  Or not to have a mind is
being very wasteful.  How true that is" Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: X.500 (was: second system syndrome)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:46:17 GMT

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.

> If I see the huge traffic that is transported in the USENET every day from
> node to node in dialup systems, then it should be no problem to have a
> permanent copy of large portions of the directory information tree using
> the X.500(92) DISP (directory information shadowing protocol).

I think you're overestimating the volume that Usenet leaf nodes get. From home,
I feed a number of small systems that get a few tens of K per day. If I want
to get a useful subset of an Internet-scale X.500 directory, what sort of
volume am I looking at?
-- 
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: romaguer@chx400.switch.ch (Jim Romaguera)
Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
Organization: SWITCH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:17:08 GMT

In article <id.TPVS._L3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.140004.4374@news.lrz-muenchen.de> Michael.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de writes:
>> In article <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>> |> 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.
>

(stuff deleted)
 
>> 2) What do you mean with unambiguous address?
>
>I mean I'll get mail from "Joe.Blow@foo.bar.something.something" and when I
>reply to it I get a bounce from the X.400 gatweway telling me there are half
>a dozen Joe Blows at foo.bar.
>
>> 3) Why do you think that X.400 does not know such thing like an unambiguous 
>>    address?
>
>An X.400 address is more like a pattern. It specifies search criteria in
>greater and greater detail, but there seems to be no fixed subset of an
>address that uniquely specifies a recipient.
>

(rest deleted)

Ok my two cents worth.....

The issue raised is the perception of an increasing amount of problems in 
gatewaying between RFC822 mail, which is widely used in the Internet, and to 
X.400 mail users (Internet & Commercially based). I don't know if there are
more problems than 'normal' or whether it only appears so. Let's say for
argument's sake that there are increasing problems.  

Why is this happening? And what do we do to make things better?

Without alot of 'hard' data it is difficult to find the exact cause of the
problems. My assumption is that there are now appearing alot more 
RFC822 <-> X.400 gateways on the Internet. Alot of these new gateways are 
not following the EXISTING operational procedures.

To make things better, email postmasters should try and use only 
'well operated' gateways. What is a 'well operated' gateway? 

The starting point is that any 'well operated' RFC822 <-> X.400 gateway 
must be conforming to RFC1327 and must follow the procedures defined by
the IETF X.400 OPS WG.

JIm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Romaguera
COSINE MHS Project Leader

RFC822: romaguera@cosine-mhs.switch.ch
X.400:  S=romaguera;OU=cosine-mhs;O=switch;P=switch;A=arcom;C=ch

NetConsult AG, Mettlenwaldweg 20a, 3037 Herrenschwanden, Switzerland.
Tel: +41 31 235 750, Fax: +41 31 235 792
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mckenzie@bbn.com (Alex McKenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: ISO Procedures
Date: 25 Aug 1992 21:07:51 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: mckenzie@labs-n.bbn.com (Alex McKenzie)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
Keywords: ISO, Standards

In article <BtA8Jx.EMC@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:

}                     ... If it is intended to be a democratic
}process, how can highly motivated independent people (e.g. like me ;-)
}have influence on the standardisation process without being employed in
}the marketing department of a huge company?

As noted by another poster, ISO is a federation of national standards
organizations.  The German member (at least in the realm of OSI) is DIN.
I have no idea how DIN determines whether a particular individual can
become a member of the DIN delegation.  In the US, at least, the member
(ANSI) wants to be sure that each individual knows enough about the
national position on each issue to be able to avoid taking a position
contrary to the national position.  This is generally assured by
requiring that each individual be an active member (attending and
participating in meetings which develop the national position) of the
member organization for a while before going to an ISO meeting.

In addition to formal requirements, it is my experience that in any
committee (not only standards committees) the amount of influence an
individual has is related to how much the other committee members
"respect" the individual (by "respect" I mean  something like "have the
sense that the individual has thought through positions taken, and can
be relied on to work on seeing other points of view and seeking
solutions that satisfy many needs").  This "respect" normally arises
from working with someone over a period of time.

Both the formal and informal "requirements" make it necessary (in my
experience) for an individual to dedicate a lot of time, and do a lot of
international traveling, before having much effect on international
standards.  That probably has the effect of making it impossible for
_most_ highly motivated but independent people to have influence on the
standardisation process.

I should add that my experience with ANSI and ISO was in the early 80's,
but I doubt that anything is significantly different today.

Alex McKenzie
 
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: ics.ralph@Control.Com (Ralph Mackiewicz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: NetBIOS for TP4
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:59:13 GMT
Reply-To: ics.ralph@control.com
Organization: Industrial Computing Society

To: Matt (mats@devildog.att.com)

There is a specification for NetBIOS over TP4 in the MAP/TOP V3.0 specs.
You should contact the Corporation for Open Systems for a copy.  There
are source code implmentations of this available from Retix.  I am not
sure where to get info on NetBIOS over TCP/IP.

TOP is an OSI profile for technical office computing.  It is essentially
the same as the U.S. GOSIP profile.  NetBIOS over TP4 is one of the 
profiles described in the TOP specification.  It seems to me that LAN
Manager is a network operating system, not just a protocol.  LANMan can
be run over a variety of networking protocols.  In fact, StarGroup from
AT&T uses LanMan over OSI TP4 and CLNS. (sorry..StarGroup is from NCR).

Regards, Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO Inc.
2943439@mcimail.com or ics.ralph@ics.org
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: craig@sics.se (Craig Partridge)
Subject: DEC-bit and CLNP
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:19:28 GMT

 
Hi:
    
    A few weeks ago I heard someone (can't recall who) mention that the
DEC-bit congestion feedback mechanism was now part of CLNP.  Could someone
who knows the CLNP standards verify that statement for me?  What I'd like
to know is the ISO standard number for the document which makes the DEC-bit
part of CLNP.
 
Thanks!
 
Craig
craig@bbn.com
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: OSI Failure?
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:45:25 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC

In article <uig3PB1w164w@Control.Com> ics.ralph@control.com writes: 
> Without marketing there are no sales.  People aren't motivated to buy
> OSI products because of a press release from COS or NM/Forum.  They
> buy products because the salesman that they have ongoing contact and a
> personal relationship with convinces them of it, or the company has a
> strong message and a product strategy that makes sense.

  Marketing ain't the big fundamental problem here people.  The
fundamental problems are 1) cost and 2) interoperability.  I've got
lots of OSI products that have passed "Conformance Testing" and have
COS certificates -- but independent implementations still don't talk
to each other.  Until they do talk with each other, it isn't solving
my network problem.  Also, I get TCP/IP and friends at no incremental
cost with my OS.  I have to pay significant extra chunks of money to
get OSI.  There is no reason to pay more given that TCP/IP and friends
work fine and are interoperable today off the shelf.

> A good example I tried to bring up was the Manufacturing Message
> Specification (MMS - ISO 9506).  This is a good standard that is
> widely supported and offers a wide range of inter- operability.
> These people did not use MMS (and OSI) simply because COS thought it
> was a good idea, they did it because using a vendor independent
> messaging mechanism for their real-time plant floor communications
> saves them money versus trying to make TCP/IP do something that it was
> not intended to do.

Wrong !  

  I am a former employee of one of the firms you cited and I can tell
you that the ONLY reason that those firms implemented MAP and MMS is
that General Motors made it a procurement requirement and GM is the
largest purchaser of real-time controls in the world.  What you wrote
just ain't true.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au (Andrew McRae)
Subject: Re: OSI Failure? (MMS and TCP/IP)
Organization: Megadata P/L, North Ryde, Sydney, Aust.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 09:32:10 GMT

From article <32y8PB1w164w@Control.Com>, by ics.ralph@Control.Com (Ralph Mackiewicz):
> In response to Ran (atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil):
> 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.

Why isn't it true? I don't understand this logic.

Let's not mix apples and oranges. MMS is an _application_ level
protocol, like FTP, telnet or FTAM, whereas TCP/IP is a _transport_ and
_network_ level protocol. I don't see why TCP/IP can't be used instead
of OSI layers for MMS. If TCP/IP is smaller, faster and lower weight
than OSI, it seems to me that it is *better* for real time device
control.

I agree that no other standard protocol
exists at the application layer that does what MMS does, and one reason
why is that MMS suffers from kitchen-sink syndrome. It may work, but
the cost in resources is pretty horrendous. It takes a lot of memory
and processing power to support a full OSI stack, whereas I can
run my TCP/IP stack on an embedded system in 40 Kb of memory on a
7 Megahertz 68000 (and that's using what some people believe is the
bloated BSD code) over 802.4 token bus and still get tens or hundreds
of Kbytes throughput.

> 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.

Standardisation by fiat can fail miserably; IMHO MAP/MMS is a classic
committee designed solution that was frozen prematurely. I believe
protocols should evolve and reach maturity *before* they become
standards.

> Ralph Mackiewicz, SISCO Inc.
> 2943439@mcimail.com or ics.ralph@ics.org

Interesting discussion. These are difficult issues.

Andrew McRae			inet:	andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au
Megadata Pty Ltd,		uucp:	..!uunet!megadata.mega.oz.au!andrew
North Ryde  2113		Phone:	+61 2 805 0899
NSW    AUSTRALIA		Fax:	+61 2 887 4847
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Request for Information: X.435
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:34:03 GMT

shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco) writes:

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

You can buy all CCITT standards at

     International Telecommunication Union
     General Secretariat - Sales Section
     Place des Nations
     CH-1211 Geneva 20
     Schweiz

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
From: dcc@athena.mit.edu (David C. Carver)
Subject: Looking for ASN.1 tutorial
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:18:04 GMT

I'm looking for a concise and readable tutorial on ASN.1 that I may share with
colleagues who are not familiar with ASN.1 or OSI.  We are considering the use of
ASN.1 independently of OSI, so the less the tutorial relies upon OSI constructs
and terminology the better.  If someone has written something, have it on-line,
and are willing to share it, that would be optimal.  I am familiar with Marshall
Rose's "The Open Book", I am aware of a book by Steedman, but haven't seen it
yet, and have read Tannanbaum's section on ASN.1.  Nothing I've seen so far is
quite what I'm looking for.  The audiance is smart and computer literate, but
only some are from the computer industry.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

/David Carver
From: a2824as@cd1.lrz-muenchen.de (Michael Storz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:00:04 GMT
Reply-To: Michael.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum Muenchen, Germany

In article <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
 
Sorry, I do not understand these sentences, the information in them seem to be
very strange to me.

1) Why should the gateway put an address in the sender field?
2) What do you mean with unambiguous address?
3) Why do you think that X.400 does not know such thing like an unambiguous 
   address?
4) What are you doing with an address of the sender field in a reply?

-- 

Michael Storz
================================================================================
                                      !   X.400 : G=michael;S=storz;OU1=lrz;
   Leibniz-Rechenzentrum              !           P=lrz-muenchen;A=dbp;C=de
   Barer Str. 21                      !   RFC822: storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
   8000 Muenchen 2                    !   Fax   : ++ 49 89 2809460
   Germany                            !   Tel   : ++ 49 89 2105 7420
================================================================================
From: jpalme@dsv.SU.SE (Jacob Palme DSV)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Looking for ASN.1 tutorial
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:01:09 GMT

The Steedman book is:

ASN.1 The Tutorial and Reference, by Douglas Steedman, published by
Technology Appraisals, Grove House, 551 London Road, Isleworth,
Middlesex TW7 4DS, United Kingdom. 
Phone +44-81-744 1155. 
Fax +44-81-744 1149.
ISBN 1 871802 06 7.

It is good, and differentiates well between ASN.1 and other OSI
concepts. The price is rather steep, here in Sweden we have to
pay about $ 150 for a copy of the book.

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
From: mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: X.500 (was: second system syndrome)
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:20:29 GMT

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

>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.

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.
If I see the huge traffic that is transported in the USENET every day from
node to node in dialup systems, then it should be no problem to have a
permanent copy of large portions of the directory information tree using
the X.500(92) DISP (directory information shadowing protocol).

It is not clearly specified in the standards, but I believe it is all right
if you set up a network that consists of DSAs that only support the DISP
instead of the usual DSP. Only a few DSAs in the net have to support 
also DSP, so that the rest of the world can ready their shadows.

Comments?

I am interested in implementing such a biest. The DISP protocol is really
simple compared to DSP. I agree that X.400 is not much fun without a
directory, but believe me, the X.400/X.500 combination (together with
the X.gc stuff for NEWS) will be the prefered email system in a few years!

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: jira@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Ajin Jirachiefpattana)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Alternate Bit Protocol modeled by GSPN.
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:48:56 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: jira@elc2.lat.oz.au

Hi,

I am currently practicing using the GreatSPN 1.5. Now my questions are:

* Is there anybody out there who has tried using GSPN to model the Alternate Bit
  protocol, and if so:
- Can I simply transform the Petri net model for this protocol to the GSPN model?
- How to include the time-out rate in the model?

Thanks in advance.

Ajin Jirachiefpattana, 
jira@latcs1.lat.oz.au

Department of Computer Science & Computer Engineering,
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Vic., 3083.
Australia.
From: andrzej@cs.uh.edu (Andrzej Cichocki)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Looking for Remote Database Access standard info.
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:59:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Sep3.175919.6413
Organization: Computer Science dept.,  Univ. of Houston (Main Campus)
Originator: andrzej@rodin


I am looking for any information concerning ISO RDA standard.
What I got so far is an ISO document: ISO-IEC-9579-[12]-DIS.
Is there anybody who knows about a book, a paper, a file on 
FTP site or anything else related to that topic?

Thanks in advance.

Andrzej Cichocki
andrzej@cs.uh.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob &)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: wanted: X protocol in ASN.1
Summary: wanted: X protocol in ASN.1
Keywords: ASN.1 X
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:27:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Has someone defined the X protocol in ASN.1?  Does anyone have a
point-of-contact for the OSI group working on integrating X as an OSI
application protocol?  Thanks.

--
Bob Bagwill	NIST/Computer Systems Lab/Distributed Systems Engineering Group