Subject: Minutes of HPR SIG at AIW 5

From: "Marcia Peters (8-444-4380)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 16:02:10 EDT

Attached are minutes of the HIGH PERFORMANCE ROUTING SIG meeting at
AIW 5, June 27-28, 1994.  Let me know of any comments or corrections.
  ______________________________________________________________________________
  Agenda

     o   Review of Procedural Matters
         -   Goals
         -   Schedule
         -   Criteria for AD
         -   Criteria for AP
     o   Technical Discussion
|
|    The SIG approved the agenda "as is".
|
  ______________________________________________________________________________
  Review of procedural matters

     o   Goals of HPR SIG

               "The initial goal of this SIG is to complete the APPN/HPR
               work in progress.  A secondary goal is to examine
               requirements for additional applications of HPR.  The
               initial scope is to ensure that HPR meets requirements
               for SNA routing by reviewing the specification and
               submitting input to the authors.  The deliverables are
               the APPN/HPR specification and recommendations concerning
               any future work.

|        (quoting the AIW Technical Plan)

     o   Schedule
           Approved Direction - AIW 5 (Jun 1994)  <-----------
           Approved Pages     - AIW 6 (Oct 1994)
           Closed Pages       - AIW 7 (early 1995?)

  ______________________________________________________________________________
  Criteria for Approval

     o   Distribute >2 weeks before meeting at which approval is sought

     o   Approved Direction

         -   Draft should contain requirements for new function;
             description of solution (terms and concepts, normal-case
             flows); general layering and node structure considerations;
             rationale for selected solution, including major
             alternatives considered; size estimate (lines of code).

     o   Approved Pages

         -   Draft should contain all changes to architecture of
             record, including error cases; complete set of FSMs or
             reasonably precise description of state transitions;
             new/changed intranode signals; format descriptions; option
             set dependencies.

  ______________________________________________________________________________
| Discussion of criteria for AD
|
|    Q: Are formats required for AD?
|    A: The formats are already in the HPR spec, but no, formats are not
|       required for AD.
|
|    Q: Are FSMs required in AP specs?
|    A: The wording on this is "..SHOULD contain FSMs".  In standards
|       parlance, "must" means mandatory; "should" means recommended.
|       Cited precedent in that the DLUR spec proved to be sufficiently
|       detailed for implementers, without FSMs.
|
|    Q: Will any information be released prior to next draft?
|    A: The plan is to release a whole new document, not piecemeal
|       changes.
|
|       A suggestion was made that piecemeal updates would help
|       companies already implementing HPR.  If IBM isn't going to
|       release HPR updates incrementally, it should advise the SIG of
|       any major changes that will be in the upcoming AP-level draft.
|
|    IBM expects to provide an AP-level draft for AIW 6 and intends to
|    allow ample time for review and comment prior to AIW 6.
  ______________________________________________________________________________
  Technical Discussion led by Ray Bird and Lap Huynh (IBM)

|    The discussions touched on the following:
|
|        -   RTP timer cancellation in the event the sender's buffers
|            get low after sending an SREQ
|
|        -   Long-Lived RTP connections for Route Setup made optional
|
|        -   Lack of reliability in connection ID exchange.  The
|            exchange is complete when the RTP partner starts using my
|            TCID.
|
|        -   Wireless/dynamic path switch - Mathew Finlayson (Data
|            Connection) expressed a concern that a node be able to
|            change its path switch controller status over time, e.g. a
|            docked laptop that becomes migratory when undocked.  This
|            is an open issue.
|
|        -   Route Setup Protocol
|
|        -   NCE (will not flow on BIND)
|
|        -  Transmission Priority (and how it relates to the APPN MIB)
|
|        Jim Cobban (BNR) expressed concerns over the lack of an HPR
|        MIB.  Also, a proposed use of transmission priority in HPR may
|        have network management ramifications since priority is not
|        currently reflected in the APPN MIB.
|
|        I am looking for suggestions from the SIG on how to organize
|        ourselves for work on HPR network management.  Should we form a
|        SIGlet within the HPR SIG?  Should we ask one of the
|        AIW-affiliated IETF SNMP workgroups to take HPR management on
|        as a work item?  What do you think?
|
| ____________________________________________________________________________
| Members' Discussion on the Request for AD
|
|        The chair asserted that the current draft, including the
|        updates distributed at AIW 4, meets the criteria for AD,
|        and recommended that the SIG grant AD approval.
|
|        Jim Cobban (BNR) initially objected to AD, saying that the
|        current draft apparently differs from a not-yet-available
|        AP-level draft, and does not address the second part of the
|        SIG's charter (requirements concerning other applications of
|        HPR).
|
|        The chair offered an interpretation of the SIG charter:
|
|              "The SIG will stage its deliverables
|              sequentially, addressing its primary goal
|              of a complete/approved HPR spec first."
|
|        The SIG offered no substantial objections to this
|        interpretation, addressing the second part of Jim's concern.
|        (I'll ask Chuck Brotman to amend the AIW Technical Plan to
|        reflect this nuance.)
|
|        We then discussed implications of NOT granting AD at AIW5.  One
|        possibility was slippage of the entire HPR schedule.  Tom Nolle
|        (CIMI, member) pointed out that a slip could damage the AIW's
|        credibility.  Other members (John Palombo for Data Connection,
|        Dave Bryant for 3Com...) spoke in favor of AD.  Jim
|        reconsidered his objection to AD.  There being no substantive
|        objections, AD status was granted.

_________________________________________________________________________
 Marcia L. Peters, Senior Architect         mpeters @ ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com
 Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking
 IBM Corp., Dept. C74, Bldg. 673
 P.O. Box 12195
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709           Telephone:     (919) 254-4380