Talk:Open Systems Interconnection

message: I have corrected the worst NPOV problem, the claim that there were no nonproprietary network technologies before OSI.  I have not corrected the others, for example the ridiculously biased claim that the OSI model was "the most important advance in education about networking".  Looking at some of this text, I am actually seriously concerned that it may have been copied from the introduction to one of those long propagandist tomes about OSI published by researchers disgruntled that the Internet had passed them by in the late 1980s -- but I would have no idea how to figure out which one; these books are thankfully no longer in print.
No Wikipedia article should ever contain a claim of the form "X is the most important Y" as far as I'm concerned -- it is basically impossible to make such a claim from an NPOV.
Tls 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious neutrality issues

message: Shouldn't this page be Open Systems Interconnection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Zietarski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 July 2005
: I think you're right.  I just looked at some old ISO Bulletin articles I happen to have lying around and the term used in the 1980s was Open Systems Interconnection.  Does anyone around here know how to move pages?  --Coolcaesar 3 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
: Holy bat-packet! I always though it was "connect", but I've just checked too, and you're right, it is "connection", e.g. "ISO 7498:1984 Open Systems Interconnection - Basic Reference Model". My only question is whether the early (70's) documents used "connect" - this one is '84. Let me check and see (and I just got finished moving it to Open Systems Interconnect, too - grrr). Noel (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've checked everything I've got, and I can only find "connection". I don't have any of the really early stuff (the first OSI Reference Model was published in '77 by the CCITT), but everything I have says "connection". So, I'll move the page... Noel (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct name

message: :For example, the definition for OSI's X.400 e-mail standards took up several large books, while the Internet e-mail (SMTP) definition took only a few dozen pages in RFC-821. It should be noted, however, that over time there have been numerous RFCs which extended the original SMTP definition, so that its complete documentation finally took up several large books as well.
That's a horrible compromise of some POV argument, sounds much like a sandbox argument to me. Either you have a point or you don't. You cannot say, we have this strong argument in favor of something, but, then again, it should be noted that it's not really an argument. --141.20.53.108 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QS: X400 vs SMTP 

message: We implemented some pieces of X.400 at Bell Labs in the late 1980s.  The Red-Book description of X.400 was not that big, but when the Blue Book came out, it was a telephone book!  I included a comment in the article, based on a report which was published then (but sorry, I don't recall where) about the failure of French and German X.400 messaging systems to communicate.  One was using delimiter-terminated strings and another was using a count/data format.  These were options, and you didn't have to do implement both, so the two system were incompatable.  A visiting scientist from IBM told us that it took several CPU seconds to send one X.400 message, in their experimental system.  That seemed almost unbelievable to us...how naive we were about bloatware in those days.
At that time, SMTP was also heavily criticized for its complexity and almost numberless security holes.  When 4.2 BSD came out, the email server brought the system to its knees and took minutes to send a message to more than a dozen people.  The email problem seemed to attract a certain type of eager but not very talented mind.  The mathematician Jim Reeds coined the phrase "Mailer Science" to describe the characteristic careless and bloated design style.
There are also horror stories about TP4 performance.  It was a very inefficient protocol compared to TCP.  I don't know how to communicate these problems here.  I'm not going to stick unreferenced anecdotes into an article, but there were serious problems with OSI.  It didn't just die because companies thought it was too expensive.  It died in part because it was badly designed by folks who were in way over their heads. DonPMitchell 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mailer Science 

message: I'd say "no" - this page discusses the overall OSI project, while OSI model discusses a specific item, the OSI networking model, that this page claims antedated the project. Guy Harris 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with "OSI model"

message: The article lacks a concise statement as to when and how the OSI vendors ceased promoting this solution and adopted TCP/IP, or withdrew from the market. 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First-hand experts could maybe illuminate re this?--The world salutes the Rising Star...Try to be One 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Final Chapter 

message: The collapse of the OSI project in 1996 severely damaged the reputation and legitimacy of the organizations involved, especially ISO. The worst part was that OSI's backers took too long to recognize and accommodate the dominance of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The financial damage done to Japan and Europe (where internet deployment was delayed by years) is difficult to estimate.
Is it the generic internet(working technology) or the public Internet?
Explain about the critique of the OSI Model and its protocols  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.216.65 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Could someone please replace the adjective Byzantine with a more widely understood word. I am afraid to do any changes myself because I do not know exactly what it means. 
Velle 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The adjective is fine.  It is a commonly used term in standard written English.  The literal meaning (denotation) is anything associated with the Byzantine Empire. The figurative meaning (connotation), which is probably the one intended here, is anything that is mazelike, confusing, or overly complex.  --Coolcaesar 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine 

message: In reading this article, there is an indepth look into the techonologies history but it lacks a decent explanation of what it actually is.  If there is a person with indepth knowledge of the techonology who can expand on this it would further round out the article. Baellen (talk)Baellen  —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.  I'll stick it on my list of things to do.  I can't really claim to be an expert on OSI but I'm reading a book dealing exclusively with it at the moment purely out of interest.  OTOH I'm reluctant to spend too much time researching and referencing an out of date protocol. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of description 

message: I reverted edits by 58.165.16.148 because they seem to be POV and don't incorporate well in the article. I am moving the section added by 58.165.16.148 for reference. Nuβiατεch  Talk 09:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 58.165.16.148 

message: Its 25 years on so hopefully another view may help balance the criticisms
Background 
I spent 16 years with ISO/ITU and some with the IETF..
I was engaged in ICL developing multi nodal mainframes back in 1983. ICL was one of the EUs Mainframe computer supplier and Jack Houldsworth within ICL was considered the "grandfather" of OSI.  At that time each computer vendor had its own comms architecture and terms about protocols and service interfaces, addressing, session control and data language making even talking about distributed communications and interworking almost impossible.  Hence the need for a common model - an OSI model.. 7 basic interchange and service layers where each layer can be assigned protocol types to that pertinant to that layer - and each layer can expose a service interface to the layer above - A service interface being very similar to Unix Sockets..  
The "layer" and service  interface language of OSI is widley used today.   
So point 1. The critical one - OSI is a 7 layer reference model- thats all.  
Protocols can be related to OSI such as Link protocols, Network, Internetwork, Transport, Session and above.. Even using these basic words about layers means we can all understand where such protocols fit in the model. 
At my time in ICL in 1983 - We developed a full OSI stack for communications between mainframes for inter CPU O/S communications, disc I/O and comms I/O running over 50mbit LANs - and achieved a TPT level turnaround in 11 microseconds. So slow and complex was never my understanding..
Point 2. The OSI protocol suite - I am not quite sure where that one came from   - there were protocol profiles,  yes,  such as GOSIP, but the intent was to have distributed systems with a common communications architecture and naming and addressing schema in which standard protocols could be used. GOSIP did include TCP/IP at later stages.  And please bear in mind - in these days each country, particularly the EU and commonwealth we were trying to normalise its IT systems from propretary networks ..We were working with what we had and knew at the time.
Point 3. Naming and Addressing - the essentials of distributed communications - Often overlooked if protocols are considered as just the means to transfer data. CLNP the EU version of IP for instance allowed NSAP address forms which could have used E.164 telephone numbers - meaning that PSTN/VoIP type services with TNs were possible with CLNP.  
Point 4.  OSI had to consider all forms of communications in order to develop a generic model  and provide language for all forms of new and existing communications -  as it certainly was not a  green field..
All mainframe vendors had interests - OSI even had to consider G3 Fax machines which use ITU transport class 0 and session protocols  - and we needed to include  telcoms protocols of the day which used physical, link and network signalling.. for PSTN, ISDN, FRX -    We even considered Decnet and SNA  other vendor systems.
The age of Internetworking..
During the 1980s Internetworking started its life  as did the need for common distributed networking language as they seemed to go hand in hand.   Most of us in the "ISO/ITU" OSI world of the time were working with TCP/IP in some form as well as SNA (IBM), DEcnet, etc - so we welcomed the Internetworking evolution...and the eventual retirement of all those proprietary bits and bytes on the wire. 
We then moved up the stack...
For example X.400 was the EU carrier grade for messaging, X.700 was for management and X.500 for directories.. all by design used an ASN.1 compiler to automatically build its application and presentation layer protocol processes.
The "discussions" about OSI  certainly did see X.400 get replaced by SMTP,  and the merging of management protocols and service  - re X.700 standards and SNMP. But X.500  a distributed directory service in which we defined information objects and naming constructs first and then access and distribution protocols last seemed to be labelled as a complex protcol for some reason - so LDAP was born - which is really X.511 the Directory Access Protocol in string encoded form. 
Our engineering experience - we devloped a "full blown" X.500 directory service with LDAP. X.511 DAP stack took 75kb of code space, LDAP three times as much. X.500 resided in about 50mbytes of code space.. The same as an office automation package of the time.We now have broadband and gigabytes - so such debates are now history.
Its a waste of time to discuss winners or loosers now.  I like to think that all of us won as we are here today with many forms of communications and distributed systems which we can build and exchange views on.. The 1980s was an age where many had strong views, where many of us who were chairing the standards processes and liasing between them were involved with the battles but really wanted the situation to normalise. After all it was the age of global internetworking.
From my own perspective X.500 (and X.509)  started me on the road of large scale directory services and identity engineering. In my view LDAP did two things  - The down side was it managed to convey a completely wrong message that  a distributed directory service with common naming properties and object definitions and security (eg. X.509 and certficates) was just a "protocol" - a complex protocol.  This is like saying that SQL is also the database and its data sets.  But the big upside is that LDAP put directories, both small and large scale systems  and identity management (IDM) onto the world stage.. IDM has become a critical issue in all systems today.
25 years on we are now working on converged internet services, identity managed service delivery platforms..and next generation event based directory engines.. see www.wwite.com
And if anyone wants to read about it see Open Systems Interconnection  Dickson Lloyd    (if you can get a copy :-)
:All the above may be true, but I did a lot of OSI based networking consultancy for a number of UK companies and government departments in 1986 and 1987, and at that time it was fairly obvious on the ground that OSI was a strategic device to benefit European hardware manufacturers like ICL and Bull and disadvantage American suppliers, especially IBM. I never met a single fellow techie at the time who thought OSI was a good choice on technical grounds. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A View

message: I just read the article, including the section on 'Criticism'. While I agree pointing out criticism is a good thing, especially in a case like this where an attempt at standardising is being discussed, it seems rather one-sided. For one, only criticism is mentioned without mentioning the advantages of the attempt. I can't believe there's nothing good in this, especially since the 7-layer model still seems to be used widely. Shouldn't a section about advantages be included as well? (Or perhaps the section criticism should be changed to 'Advantages/Disadvantages'?)
My other point of concern in this section is that only one source is cited, while there are several aspects of criticism. If we're just shown one source, how can we trust this is widely accepted at all? Could someone provide more sources in order to increase credibility of the section?HSNie 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Criticism