Thread View: comp.protocols.misc
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Philip Earnhardt
Fri, 07 Sep 1990 00:42
Re: RPC Technologies
Author: Philip Earnhardt
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 1990 00:42
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 1990 00:42
55 lines
3082 bytes
3082 bytes
In <5370@ptsfa.PacBell.COM> jag@PacBell.COM (Jim Goncher) writes: > [questions about the status of the ISO/OSI RPC Standard] The number of the beast is ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21 N 4927. This is a working draft--the first of 4 steps in becoming a standard. I'm not sure if such standards are available from the traditional sources for ISO documents--the copy I have has the phone number for ANSI on the cover -- (212) 642-4932. ROSE is used in an RPC-like fashion in X.500 and X.400 applications. I have never directly worked with ROSE; my understanding is that it contains the protocol units for doing RPC. However, there are other issues that must be addressed for a standalone RPC--handling of binding and external language interfaces. Proponents of ROSE may argue that ROSE adequately deals with such issues--these debates are part of what's going on in the standards bodies meetings. The proposed RPC standard is a "Layer 7 and Beyond" protocol--the "and Beyond" is addressing things like the language interface to RPC. ROSE is certainly a [mechanism for creating a] layer 7 protocol. In earlier discussions on this group Mishkin has tried to discount the importance of Netwise's using ISO 8327 (Session Layer Protocol) and ISO 8822 (Presentation Layer Protocol) in its new products: <4bc8788d.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Mishkin says: > Get ALL your facts straight. First of all, there's currently no ISO > standard for RPC. Second, the protocol NCS 2.0 defines for running over > COTPs adheres as closely as possible to how we imagine such an ISO standard > will appear and fit into the OSI model. This includes presentation > negotiation and the rest of the ball of mud. Believe me, I've had > T-CONNECT through A-CONNECT up to my ears. If RPC is a Layer 7 protocol, the *exact* way that it would fit into a Profiled OSI Stack is on top if the standard OSI Presentation and Session layers. Several quesitons: 1. Do the NCS developers think that OSI RPC is going to be a layer 7 standard? If not, why not? 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what protocols do they think will be used at Layer 6 and Layer 5? If not ISO 8327 and ISO 8824, what other protocls will be used? 3. Your second sentence above talks about NCS on top of COTPs. What about NCS on top of CLTPs? Will these be ISO compliant? Will they use the ISO connection-oriented or connectionless upper layer protocols? Phil Earnhardt Netwise, Inc. 2477 55th St. Boulder, CO 80301 Phone:303-442-8280 UUCP: onecom!wldrdg!pae My opinions do not reflect any official position of Netwise.
Re: RPC Technologies
Author: Nathaniel Mishkin
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 1990 19:39
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 1990 19:39
58 lines
3549 bytes
3549 bytes
In article <1990Sep7.004206.17225@athena.mit.edu>, pae@athena.mit.edu (Philip Earnhardt) writes:
>In earlier discussions on this group Mishkin has tried to discount the
>importance of Netwise's using ISO 8327 (Session Layer Protocol) and
>ISO 8822 (Presentation Layer Protocol) in its new products:
>
>If RPC is a Layer 7 protocol, the *exact* way that it would fit into a
>Profiled OSI Stack is on top if the standard OSI Presentation and
>Session layers.
>
>Several quesitons:
>
>1. Do the NCS developers think that OSI RPC is going to be a layer 7
> standard? If not, why not?
To the extent I understand all this, yes.
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what protocols do they think will be used
> at Layer 6 and Layer 5? If not ISO 8327 and ISO 8824, what other
> protocls will be used?
I don't get it. The fact that you use ISO standard Session and
Presentation layer protocols is merely interesting, not important in
achieving an RPC system that meets some standard, because there IS no
RPC standard at the higher levels. Whatever you (or we) do at those
layers does not yield a "standard RPC", regardless of whether we happen
to use standard protocols at lower levels.
To the extent that you use standard protocols at lower levels and to
the extent that it's hard to produce (or find existing) systems that
implement or use those protocols, you may have some advantage in the
race to achieve a standard RPC system, when the higher-level protocols
are standardized. My supposition is that implementation of the session
layer protocols is the business of the platform upon which I'm building
an RPC system and that there are a variety of existing implementations
of ASN.1/BER that I could freely obtain or buy to use as the basis for
the presentation level implementation of my RPC system. It's just not
that big a deal, and the requirement is not going to appear tomorrow
(because the RPC standard is not going to appear tomorrow).
>3. Your second sentence above talks about NCS on top of COTPs. What
> about NCS on top of CLTPs? Will these be ISO compliant? Will they
> use the ISO connection-oriented or connectionless upper layer protocols?
As I understand things, whether I can build an NCS that is an RPC system
that is ISO compliant and runs over CLTP's is a function of whether ISO
defines upper level RPC protocols that are defined to work on top of
CLTP's. I think ROSE is defined to use COTP's. I suspect that any ISO
standard RPC will be similarly defined (although maybe other ISO standard
RPC protocols will be defined later to run over CLTP's). When a
CLTP-oriented ISO RPC protocol is defined, I imagine we will implement
it. It's hard to be concrete about things that depend on things that
don't exist.
--
-- Nat Mishkin
Cooperative Object Computing Operation
Hewlett-Packard Company
mishkin@apollo.hp.com
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads