Re: TCP/IP Terms

To: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu at citynet.net>
Subject: Re: TCP/IP Terms
From: Robert Elz <kre at munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:43:55 +0700
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <000701c26892$52428400$5844903f@a>
References: <000701c26892$52428400$5844903f@a>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

    Date:        Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:01:56 -0400
    From:        "Bill Cunningham" <billcu at citynet.net>
    Message-ID:  <000701c26892$52428400$5844903f at a>

  | I think the main goal is to compete with OSI's much more defined model.

Why?

  | I for one, don't want to see OSI overtake in any way TCP/IP, even in
  | definitions.

I'd actually much prefer for OSI to win the "war of the definitions".
Rigid definitions tend to constrain thinking to fit into the patterns
defined.   We're much better off just having a rough idea what things
mean when it gets to this level.

kre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: TCP/IP Terms
  - From: Bill Cunningham

References:
- TCP/IP Terms
  - From: Bill Cunningham

Prev by Date: RE: TCP/IP Terms
Next by Date: Re: TCP/IP Terms
Previous by thread: TCP/IP Terms
Next by thread: Re: TCP/IP Terms
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: TCP/IP Terms

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.