Re: Fwd: Fw: Quantifying OSI

On 5/11/26 9:07 AM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:

> How many hours did OSI proponents spend actually writing code and getting
> networks running? Writing papers and going to meetings doesn't count.

I spent far too many hours trying to implement X.400 (beginning with 
ASN.1/BER).  Much of that time involved pounding on desks and screaming 
"What the F!!! does this text - xxxx, yyyy, zzzz - mean?  Why are they 
doing this? This has no limits!! Will anyone ever use this part? !!!!!!"

The implementation was no harder than doing something hard - like IPv4 
reassembly of fragments [I've got some test code that will knock out - 
sometimes even crash - pretty much any present day instance of IPv4 
reassembly - fortunately most of those cases, although RFC legit, 
essentially never occur in practice - but they could if sent by an 
hostile peer or done by a hostile man-in-the-middle.]

But many more hours were spent trying to figure out what the standards 
meant.  And there was really no one to ask for clarifications or 
insights.  And there were few peer implementations one could test against.

Overall, implementing OSI stuff was at least an order of magnitude 
(probably more than a single order) more time consuming than for TCP/IP.

At least I was able to recoup some of that time investment when I did 
SNMP clients and servers.

 From my implementer's point of view, ISO/OSI pointed an automatic 
weapon at its own feet and opened fire.  There were good ides in ISO/OSI 
but their proponents buried them under mountains of dross verbiage, nary 
a paragraph of which bothered to explain they why's and how's.  The 
death of ISO/OSI was essentially self inflicted.

         --karl--


-- 
Internet-history mailing list
[email protected]
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history