[robertgraham]

Well, you sort of demonstrate my point.

The writers the OSI Model wrote a specific blueprint, not an "observation of natural laws". When they said "session", they didn't mean the same things you conceive of. Instead, they meant a very specific problem of connecting dumb terminals to simplex links.

What you now call "sessions" is what OSI called "associations", and OSI defined them to be part of the "Application Layer".

I'm not sure you've even read the OSI Model. For example, the "Presentation Layer" is not defined to do the data format translation, but only to NEGOTIATE a common represenation. The actual data translation is still done in the Application.

This is the problem. People have not read and understood the entire model. They've not heard of "associations" and believe the OSI's use of "sessions" means anything they might call "session". They believe OSI was written as theory when it was not. They believe anything OSI terms they don't understand mean something else, mean some sort of timeless theory.

They are seduced by their own ignorance of the model.

[boffinAudio]

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.

[fanf2]

I am curious how the OSI model would guide a reader on which layer should be responsible for encryption and authentication. Especially how it relates to existing protocols such as IPSEC, TLS, Kerberized Telnet, QUIC, etc.

[taylodl]

My experience has been similar to yours and from day one way back in the early 80's I was taught that OSI is a model and that no real-world networking protocol adhered to it. Period end. Forty years ago OSI wasn't taught as a framework or a standard - and this was within 5 years of it being developed! It was always taught as a model to understand the different aspects and functions of machine to machine communications. That's it and that's all!

In fact, it was this model that enabled the development and rapid adoption of the internet. People knew and understood, from day one, which OSI layer abstractions were collapsed into and managed by which parts of the TCP/IP protocol. People knew and understood, again from day one, where protocols such FTP, HTTP, and SMTP stood in the model. People understood where physical things like routers, bridges and gateways fit in the model and what functions were being served. The OSI model facilitated the explosion in networking that took place in the 80's and 90's - I know because I was there and watched it happen and was utilizing the model in creating solutions at the time!

This author is attacking a Straw Man.