| I beg to differ with you on all counts. The problem of having an abstract representation of 'something' that must exist before any further negotiation can occur, on a one-on-one peer basis, still exists. We still have sessions. The technology may have been a soggy noodle when the OSI authors started their journey, but its still just a damp string now. >I'm not sure you've even read the OSI Model. That is your prerogative, but I could as well claim that, neither have you - or if you have, you clearly have not understood it well, also. Such statements are of little use in a discussion of the OSI model, other than to serve as a barrier to entry. >Seduced OSI was written to observe a specific instance of the necessity to formulate distinct abstractions between disparate components in a multi-variate system, successfully processing information. (The Open Systems Interchange, or indeed .. didn't OSI itself evolve as an acronym, hmm..) Like many good observations of natural law, it evolved over time as humans came to understand it, adopt it, and apply it to their situation. Your claims of the intents and purposes of the original authors, per your perspective of the model, are frankly not convincing in the slightest. Technology evolves from natural laws. It is based on observation, analysis, understanding, and application. This is true of all technologies - they're entirely dependent on the skill of the user. Perhaps you have not searched far enough to find positive examples of OSI model mapping in an analysis which produced high-yield, industrial-strength, compelling results. I would say you haven't looked far enough - because you seem intent on only applying it to your limited scopes: a) networking/TCP-IP, and b) your analysis of stupid people and their ignorance of history because it is sexy. Do OSI on a system for musicians to create sound together on stage, and fail at it at least 3 times, and then we can discuss seduction. |