On Nov 21, 2017, at 19:48, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > In my opinion, the ISO layer naming system has always been better as > documentation, rather than architecture :-)
And we can celebrate its 40th birthday in a couple of months. Grüße, Carsten (The OSI Reference Model, standardized in ISO 7498/ITU-T X.200 was *intended* to be prescriptive, structuring the standardization work lying ahead in 1978. It lost that function with the factual end of the OSI project a dozen years later, and most people have forgotten what the OSI layers were about: Layer 2, 3, 4, 7 took on a new, slightly different meaning as layer numbers for the layers named in RFC 1122/1123, while 1 is convenient as a layer number for the part of the RFC 1122 link layer that is concerned with bits, symbols, clocks, and physical interoperability. The old seven-layer OSI model is still being taught, usually mostly with the current meaning of the layer numbers that still exist, and a lot of misconceptions of what L5/L6 were supposed to be, in computer networking classes by teachers that don’t know better. Foo.) _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
