Subject: Re: Frame-Relay Formats for HPR

From: [email-masked] (Dave Finnie)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 07:27:18 EST

Jim,

> I really sympathize with this concern, but I must ask the AIW in general to
> comment on whether it is appropriate behavior for one member to ship
> product code based upon an incomplete specification and then demand that
> everyone else change their implementations to accomodate these premature
> deliveries.  I certainly understood that as members of the AIW we were not
> permitted to ship production implementations of any of these features until
> CP was reached.

Extremely good point, Jim.

I raised this concern with the architecture group privately some time ago
concerning the HPR preference debate. I do not want to reopen that debate, but
the argument that AS400 HPR code would need to change was given as one of the
reasons for doing nothing.

I would like to express that I disagree whole-heartedly with the approach taken
by IBM in relation to this.

I understand that during the development of a complex new protocol such as HPR,
a product needs to be developed at an early stage in the process. The obvious
benefits of this are proof of concept and identification of unforseen problems,
which obviously leads to a more resilient (and practical) protocol at the
end of the process. An obvious side benefit is that the prototype product is
potentially first to market, but I do not believe this is IBM's primary goal.

However...

I do not believe that before the protocol is considered "closed pages", that a
valid argument is that it may not be altered/enhanced because the prototype
product would need to be changed.

As an example, if our company implemented HPR while the protocol was still
evolving, how many of you would listen to our complaint that the protocol cannot
be improved simply because we would need to change our product ? I don't 
believe IBM should receive any special treatment in regards to this.

Dave

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:07:04 +0500

> believe IBM should receive any special treatment in regards to this.
Well, IBM can if it wants to keep HPR as a closed system like SNA.

---

From: David Matusow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:02:53 -42000

> Well, IBM can if it wants to keep HPR as a closed system like SNA.

yes, and ensure that NO ONE implements HPR.  If IBM wants to show that 
its really open, it has to start recognizing that it may have to update 
some products AFTER they have already gone out.  This isn't easy to bite 
off on, but it is necessary for openness.