"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-31 16:34:27 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

One version split it into the 7 layer OSI stack, when it looked as if
OSI was going to be the way forward, which it was and should have been.

Another blunder. You seem not to know the difference between the OSI
*model* and the ISO *stack*.

Matt, you haven't a clue. I have had this with you a long time ago and
it was clear you didn't have a clue about OSI.

Actually, you just demonstrated

Matt, it is clear you haven't a clue, or half at best. OSI was primarily a
"connectionless" protocol, which you didn't know. Its selling point was
that it was connectionless. No handshake, which takes time and resources,
you just send. It anticipated reliable fast infrastructure. Although at
the last minute they brought out a connection oriented protocol for
situations where a handshake was essential.

very clearly that the boot is on the other foot.

Lord Hall's or Matt's foot?

The ISO protocol stack never really stood a realistic chance of broad
adoption. That became apparent as early as the early to mid 80s.

Balls Matt. It was in vogue and was heavily funded until the w.w.w. came
in.

No it wasn't.

Matt, it was and even after.

There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread ISO protocol
deployment.

Matt, there was as all the governments and the EU were pushing it. Even in
the US NISK were involved.

Then an inferior TCP/IP was adopted which didn't have enough scope for
all the addresses, as it was a cobbled together improvise in the first
place.

That is also rubbish.

Nonsense Matt. Read Tenambaum, well the earlier versions. All sorts of
clever IP address jiggery pokery was formulated to keep the crock going.
The only people who pushed TCP/IP were private companies who had a vested
interest in keeping OSI out.

TCP/IP was put together in Snowbird near Salt Lake City. I've been to the
hotel where a bunch of students zipped up this inadequate 5 layer stack on
backs of envelopes. OSI was deemed to be carrying too much baggage in the
headers ay the time. Today with high speed networks this is not a problem.
It was stated that it would be fine when infrastructure caught up. You
could also have null layers if you liked to speed it up.

Th rapid spread of the Internet and the w.w.w., which had not adopted OSI as
it was still being implemeted in various government departments and had not
quite reached the rest, killed OSI. Nothing else. It was too late to turn
back the TCP/IP protocol. If the www had been two years later it probably
would have had an OSI protocol stack.