🚀 go-pugleaf

Disclaimer:  I'm someone who lives in the TCP/IP world and prefers
  TCP/IP to other types of networking.  I was once interested in
  OSI and X.400 (especially PP), but was discouraged by its size and
  complexity.  I have not had an opportunity to review the standards
  themselves.  My bias against OSI may show.


The OSI standards are open (in my opinion) because anyone can use
those standards through products developed by independent vendors
that are based on the OSI standards.  The OSI people (CCITT?) do not
charge an end user or organisation for using their standards.  The
vendors who make OSI-based products are free to compete with each
other based on the merits of their software (or hardware).

Should the standards be distributed for free?  That is a matter of
opinion.  My opinion:  If the OSI standards were not restricted in
their distribution and were freely available to the public, there
would be more people who would understand how they work and might
use them or even develop software for them.  Then again, the OSI
people have a right to recover charges and expenses for their dis-
tribution of the standards.  Whether they should be allowed to have
a monopoly on the distribution depends, in part, on how they are
funded.

How are the creation of OSI standards funded?  If my tax dollars
(or francs, pounds, marks, etc.) went into the development of those
standards, I don't see why I should have to pay to get them.

BTW: I'm sure that more than a few trees would be spared if the
     standards were distributed or made available electronically.


proyse@peeras.demon.co.uk (Phil Royse) writes:
> It appears not to be insisting too strongly, and govt. departments on tight
> budgets, who don't actually CARE (except that they want low cost workable
> "open" systems), are continuing to buy TCP/IP.  They are allowed to do so by
> invoking the "derogation" of "operational continuity" and having a "strategy"
> on file which says "we plan to migrate to OSI ... waffle waffle..."

One way they can better state their case is to say they're buying
TCP/IP and plan to layer OSI protocols (like X.400/X.500) on top of
it.  By chosing this path they get to use the best of both worlds
and not be trapped in one or the other.

The TCP/IP world has alot to offer.  Why should organisations choose
only OSI protocols?  ("Because they are standards" does not count.)
--
Eric Ziegast
ziegast@uunet.uu.net