4 ms·
My understanding was that the thinking at the time was that the IP family protocols (ie tcp, udp, etc) would soon be replaced by OSI protocols and the sockets a
by dan-robertson 3y ago
My understanding was that the thinking at the time was that the IP family protocols (ie tcp, udp, etc) would soon be replaced by OSI protocols and the sockets api was too tightly coupled with IP protocols and so your applications would need more difficult upgrades in the future if you wrote them against sockets. But your quotation disagrees with that claim. I think part of the implied benefit of the epic library is that it would seamlessly transition when the new OSI protocols were used.
Obviously, we now know that the OSI protocols didn’t get used (unless you count ldap or x509 or everyone talking about layers all the time) and so the more flexible api was not required.
- logronoide 3y agoThat’s what our “Teleinformatics” professors taught to us early in the 90’s at the university. OSI protocols were promising but adoption was not clear.
- saghm 3y ago> or everyone talking about layers all the time This is super funny, but also a bit of a surprise for someone born after the referenced thread occurred. As someone who only learned about the "layers" model of networks in college more than two decades after the discussion, it never occurred to me that the original intent of the model was to describe forthcoming protocols from OSI; we were just told "this layer means TCP or UDP, this layer means IP, etc.", and no one mentioned any historical context around the choices.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y agoTannenbaums network books from the late 80s also mapped the OSI layers onto TCP/UDP/IP
- Tuna-Fish 3y agoFor anyone interested in the historical context, I strongly recommend this blogpost on it: https://computer.rip/2021-03-27-the-actual-osi-model.html https://computer.rip/2021-03-27-the-actual-osi-model.html