Subject: Minutes of AIW 11 HPR SIG

From: "Marcia Peters (8-444-4380)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 16:59:56 EDT

_______________________________________________________________________

                           M I N U T E S
                              HPR SIG

AIW 11                   July 15-18, 1996                  Raleigh, NC
_______________________________________________________________________

Agenda:
 o  ATM-05 document review and request for CP - Gary Dudley (IBM)
 o  Changes to base HPR - Ray Bird (IBM)

                              ATM-05
                              ======

Chuck Brotman (IBM), AIW chair, presented a plan for ATM Forum review and
AIW approval of the ATM-05 document.  With CP approval from the HPR SIG,
the document would be made available to the ATM-F and Gary would attend
the August ATM-F meeting to educate and answer questions.  Thereafter, we
would expect a liaison letter from the ATM-F, and the AIW plenary could
grant CP at that time.  This plan was agreeable.

Gary went over the changes that had been made to the spec, and some new
things that had just been found but not yet incorporated in the document.

Jim Cobban (Nortel) expressed concern that the concepts in the spec are
not yet proven in an implementation, and interoperability hasn't been
tested.  He later repeated this concern, saying he believed IBM had one
implementation in test, but not two.  The discussion of whether AIW
procedure requires multiple interoperating implementations was deferred
to the AIW plenary.  It was pointed out that AIW documents are far more
detailed and unambiguous than typical RFCs, justifying a procedure
different from the IETF's.  Gary agreed it is always possible that
product development results in additional changes to a spec.

Mathew Finlayson (DCL) asked if "AP" didn't better describe the current
status.  Chuck said we'd like to minimize ambiguity and allow people to
ship product, and we may need a buffer for integrating changes suggested
by the ATM Forum.  He tried to determine if delaying CP by about a month
impacts anybody.  Besides IBM, implementers will include Bay, Cisco, and
DCL.  It did not appear that anyone's first ship date would be impacted.
Marcia Peters (IBM) pointed out the benefits of meeting our planned
HPR/ATM approval schedule, for press visibility and customer confidence.

We deferred procedural issues and continued the technical review.

Matthew asked if the new connection network model needed any MIB changes.
Bob Moore (IBM) said he thought not.

Jim asked for creation of a new option set for FR-ATM interoperability
via LDLC for FR.  Marcia agreed that it should either be a separate
option, or an update to option set 1404.

Ray asked if we should split LDLC out into a separate document to enable
it for other subnets.  Jim preferred one complete HPR document.  Ray said
he wrote the LDLC part so it can stand alone pretty well.

Jim suggested the terms local and remote SAP rather than SSAP and DSAP.
Gary agreed.

Jim said the 2.7 charts don't handle option set 1411, since they omit
LDLC-LLC2 coordination, or how to decide which to do.  Marcia asked Jim
to contribute that design.  He agreed to work it out with DCL.  (Jim --
when do you expect to make this contribution?)

We resumed discussing approval.

Marcia asked if ATM Forum review is important; Gary said yes.  Marcia
said that granting CP when no one has a shipped (or announced) a product
yet appears to set an AIW precedent.  Ray disagreed: he said that HPR
went CP before anyone shipped.  Chuck asked again if there were any
problems with the proposed schedule.  Matthew asked if the ATM Forum
might want subsequent changes.  Gary said that what the ATMF is most
interested in -- ATM signalling -- is least likely to change.  Jim said
if there are substantive changes from the ATMF, we should bring them back
for AIW 12.  Chuck said we should allow that possibility, but we can
handle it if and when it occurs.

Marcia asked if the spec should receive CP.  Don suggested that the AIW
accept the recommendation of the HPR SIG at a future date.  Marcia read a
consensus for CP approval.  The SIG thanked Gary Dudley for his excellent
work as editor and architect for HPR/ATM.

                             HPR
                             ===

Ray showed a "really good" bug in HPR that happens if CP-CP sessions run
on a limited resource link with very different limited-resource timers.
Marcia asked if we can't just disable the limited resource function if
there are CP-CP sessions.  Matthew said that would be harder to code.

Gary Schultz (IBM) asked why the timer value is sent at all.  Ray replied
that it's sent for multi-hop paths.  CP-CP sessions are single-hop, but
there's no Route Setup to collect the smallest timer value.

Ray said he'd document this soon and asked if DCL had seen this bug in
test.  Matthew replied that DCL does not yet support control flows over
RTP.

Gary said he'd release a new version of ATM-05, with the changes he
showed and those agreed to at AIW 11, pretty quickly.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.

_________________________________________________________________________
 Marcia L. Peters, Chair                    Marcia_Peters @ vnet.ibm.com
 Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking
 IBM Corp., Dept. BUFA, Bldg. 664
 P.O. Box 12195                             Phone:         (919) 254-4380
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709           Fax:           (919) 254-5483