Subject: Clarification of Cayman stance...

From: [email-masked] (Scott Adams)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:04:01 -0400 (EDT)

I'd like to clarify my opinions on the following:

> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Feature:	Base Set vs. Option Sets
>     Description:	What features in DLSw should be base requirements for
> 			interoperability and which ones should be optional.
>     Member Input:
> 	Cayman		Base = tunnel creation, capability exchg, receive all
> 			packets w/o dying, flow control
> 	Novell		NetBIOS support is optional.
> 	Eicon		Base set implied by today's DLSw (i.e. default
> 			capabilities).
>     Comments:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I suggest using what's in RFC 1434 as the base, with the addition of
capabilities exchange (to allow extension via options) and flow
control (based on whatever proposal comes from that work group).

       Cayman           Base = RFC 1434 + capab exchng + flow cntrl

> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Feature:	Directory Server / Name Server
>     Description:	How should DLSw-capable routers find out about each
> 			other?
>     Member Input:
> 	Radlinx		List of already-known DLSw routers in capabilities
> 			exchange.
> 	Hypercom	Name server treading onto APPN turf. Objective, but
> 			not in the base.
> 	Cisco		List of already-known DLSw routers in capabilities
> 			exchange.
> 	Novell		List of DLSw routers in capabilities exchange.  Don't
> 			want it link state-based.
> 	Eicon		Wants a directory server. DS capability in exchange.
>     Comments:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Please add:

        Cayman          Name server as option, and only if includes some 
                        means of segmenting

> I would like to add another option set to the list, namely the ability to
> participate in a yet-to-be-defined loop prevention protocol.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Choon Lee
> 3Com Corp.

I would also like this included as an option to the base service.

And while you're at it...I would like to see as options support for
dynamic TCP (transport) connection establishment (after initial
connection for capabilities exchange), and also for duplex TCP (single
connection) and for multiple TCP connections between DLSw (duplex).

I'm going to be on vacation next week (Jul. 26 - 30), but when I get
back I'd be happy to make proposals for these, if other's consider
them worthwile (I've seen some comments from others on scalability
concerns over the static, half-duplex TCP connections...).

Scott