Re: Historical question: Link layer flow control / silent discard

Some poor deluded folks (I among them) did implement ISO TP classes 1 & 3
over X.25 .  Years later, replaced (me again) by TP0 over TCP.  As this
was at Western Union and then ATT, perhaps excusable as Bellheadness, or
youthful folly.

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:02:57PM -0400, John Day wrote:
> Just for the record and then I will let this discussion go on, but 
> X.25 was not at the core of the OSI Model.  It is true that there 
> were some people Bob's age (we called them the old guard) who thought 
> they wanted to X.25 products and say it was OSI, but no one else had 
> any intention of doing OSI products with X.25.  Nor was it at the 
> core of OSI Network Layer.  Most of those people would have said CLNP 
> was the core of the OSI Network Layer.  In fact, OSI was designed to 
> handle multiple network technologies, which is why the Network Layer 
> was structured the way it was.  OSI allowed both connection-oriented 
> and connectionless operation.  The fact that no one ever defined for 
> OSI a connection-oriented network layer protocol but did define a 
> Connectionless Network Layer Protocol (CLNP) speaks for itself.
> 
> End of myth-busting.