Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#21

Post by nknighthb »

npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

This is why every time Mozilla starts whining about Google playing with new things without consulting everybody else first (e.g. Dart, NaCl), I lose more respect for them (actually, at this point, they've pretty well exhausted it all). Basic advancement comes from somebody deciding to try something new, not from getting everybody to agree on what comes next.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#22

Post by dragonwriter »

blue1 wrote: post #12
npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

Doesn't this description of the OSI way look similar to how the W3C works?

Isn't the W3C working that way, at least at a certain point in the past, the reason why WHATWG exists outside of W3C?

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#23

Post by mcguire »

"Everything was up for debate—even trivial nuances of language, like the difference between 'you will comply' and 'you should comply,' triggered complaints."

That's not actually a trivial nuance---those are significantly different semantic behaviors. IETF RFC's use "MUST" and "SHOULD" (yes, in caps) for the same distinction.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#24

Post by rogerbinns »

There were also some differences in design tastes. For example OSI went with ASN.1[1] for binary descriptions rather than plain and simple. TCP and IP just use 8/16/32 bit fields in a predefined byte ordering and that is it. That makes TCP/IP considerably easier to eyeball.

In higher level protocols like email, the TCP/IP world tended towards ASCII based protocols which are far more flexible and future proof, while OSI again did ASN.1. I once worked on an X.400 (OSI Email) gateway and was highly amused that they defined a different error code for every possible reason an email could be refused. There were pages of them (including recipient is dead!) while SMTP allowed for arbitrary text and an overal numeric code to indicate the type of error. Again you can see which was easier to eyeball and diagnose.

Practicality tends to be very effective.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Syntax_Notation_One

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#25

Post by npsimons »

npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

To sum up my reply to replies to my OP: the biggest thing I take away from this quote, personally, is that you should have a good, practical knowledge of something before you go about making a standard, and input from the real world is also a very good idea. Some upfront design is necessary, yes, but when politics dominates technical concerns, failure is bound to follow.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#26

Post by aidenn0 »

nknighthb wrote: post #21
npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

This is why every time Mozilla starts whining about Google playing with new things without consulting everybody else first (e.g. Dart, NaCl), I lose more respect for them (actually, at this point, they've pretty well exhausted it all). Basic advancement comes from somebody deciding to try something new, not from getting everybody to agree on what comes next.

It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser.

Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would be quite detrimental to Mozilla.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#27

Post by r4pha »

I had always looked to the OSI model as a _frame_ thought which a communition channel can be analysed. If I intercept my internet cable, I assume I can idealy measure the signal and fit it on the 7 layers of the OSI model. I fail (honestly) to see how that is a failure, as seems to be the starting point. Isn't the OSI model _one_ way to look at a medium?

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#28

Post by nknighthb »

aidenn0 wrote: post #26
nknighthb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why every time Mozilla starts whining about Google playing with new things without consulting everybody else first (e.g. Dart, NaCl), I lose more respect for them (actually, at this point, they've pretty well exhausted it all). Basic advancement comes from somebody deciding to try something new, not from getting everybody to agree on what comes next.

It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser. Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would…

So, invent new things, just don't get anyone else to use them. Got it. Please surrender your lightbulbs immediately.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#29

Post by aidenn0 »

mjn wrote: post #11
hga wrote: post #7

Not too impressed with this account, which I will admit starting to skim around halfway. E.g.: I'm not sure the author realizes TCP is a virtual circuit protocol (then again I'm sure OSI had one or more much heavier weight ones). The real fatal flaw of OSI, before even getting to the point of finding out if their protocols worked---many of them did get far enough in standardization process---was their going to ISO in…

> spending around $2,000 ($1,000 in 1988 dollars) to buy a shelf of the standards documents The ISLISP standardization group did an interesting workaround for this: http://www.islisp.info/history.html An ISO committee to standardize the language was constituted but stalled on doing any real work drafting a standard. While they waited around, the community drew up a draft standard, which was published as a public reco…

Common Lisp also has an interesting history with regard to copyright, which resulted in the HyperSpec. I can't find the history here, but someone (KMP maybe?) wrote about the discussion when it came time to transfer the copyright to ISO.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#30

Post by aidenn0 »

nknighthb wrote: post #28
aidenn0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser. Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would…

So, invent new things, just don't get anyone else to use them. Got it. Please surrender your lightbulbs immediately.

Thanks for replying to a strawman version of what I said.
Post reply on HN