Subject: Re: Capabilities - renaming DLSw?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 02:08:52 PDT

Wayne Clark of Cisco and Capabilities SIGlet coordinator wrote:
>>>    What do others feel about calling the standard we're working
>>>    on "ODLS" for Open Data Link Switching (analogous to OSPF)?

Louise Herndon Wells of Internetwork Technology Institute 
	and DLSw SIG chair replied:
>>First, this would be an issue that would need to be presented to the
>>entire SIG and not just one SIGlet.  Second, I believe that renaming
>>would be more rather than less confusing.  Third, I think that we
>>could replace/update the informational RFC with the standard when
>>it is ready.

Anson Chen of Cisco countered:

>Anson's comments.

My replies.

>I agree that renaming may cause some confusion initially.

I think we need to take the cost of that confusion into account.  
The SNA interoperability market is confusing enough for users.
If it has a different name than IBM's, it will
make users queasy about buying *either* version.

>The standardized DLSw may not necessary be totally 
>compatible with today's 6611 implementation.  

Unless we make some really stupid moves as a SIG, IBM is very 
likely to move its implementation in line with the enhanced
standard.  It is not in anyone's interest to have two incompatible
specs.  Therefore, although what we develop will be a new, 
improved, brass-bound, copper-bottomed, all-singing, 
all-dancing DLSw, it will still be DLSw.

Historical example I:  IBM opened CPI-C to X/Open.  The X/Open 
version was not initially compatible with IBM's.  IBM developed a 
converged version with the standard for its next release.
I expect a similar migration would happen here.

Historical example II:  ISO's distributed transaction processing protocol
is based in large part on LU 6.2/APPC.  IBM has incorporated many
of the ISO enhancements into APPC.  (BTW:  ISO used a different
name for its version.  No one is buying it.  Bad precedent.)

>By then, vendors may find it nessary to 
>distinguish between the two (for customers).  

Certainly each vendor will add its own frills and its own
product name to its implementation.  (I had expected that
Cisco would name its own creation Open DLS or maybe
DLS Internetworking.)    :-)

But I believe the underlying standard name behind all products 
should retain the benefit of whatever familiarity it has generated.  

>We are still at an early stage of this standardization process.
>If there is a "right" time to remove this ambiguity, now is the time.

Certainly now is the right time to consider this question.

>Open/DLS, or ODLS seems to be an appropriate name because:
>1. DLSw is an OPEN and evolving standard, not an implementation.

So say "DLSw is now open."

>2. DLSw is originated from IBM.  Open/DLS reflects the fact that
>   IBM has made DLSw OPEN to all vendors and customers.

Same comment.

>3. The end users are customers, not vendors.  OPEN implies
>  interoperability among systems from different vendors,
>  and protection of the customers' investment.
>  (Vendors in the SIG are likely have many common customers.)  

I have yet to meet a customer stupid enough to be swayed at all
by a product or standard having the word Open in the title.  
If we develop conformance testing in time (right, Rick?), 
the proof will be in the pudding.

(BTW, as an example:  Most people think that Open in the title
Open Shortest Path First is being used as a verb rather than an adjective.)

>4. Like X/Open and ANSI/C.  When someone sees Open/DLS or ODLS, 
>   they know they are dealing with the standard.

I recall that our goal, once we get the standardall primped and polished, 
is to submit it to the IETF.  A passed RFC from IETF, like the X/Open or
ANSI label,  carries a lot more weight than Open in the title. 
(BTW:  X/Open' s version of CPI-C is called CPI-C or X/Open CPI-C.)

>Do you think these are valid concerns and reasonable suggestions ?  
>If you do, I will forward this to the entire SIG.

I'd prefer to see whether there are any other voices (fingers?) of support 
behind this before we throw it to the entire SIG.  However, of course,
each SIG member is free to post there whatever they wish.

Thanks for the very reasoned arguments, Anson.  Let's keep these
communication lines open.  

Louise

---

From: [email-masked] (David Matusow)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 11:11:26 -0400

>   >compatible with today's 6611 implementation.  

It looks VERY unlikely that the outcome of this will be compatible;
as you said, ALL of us will need to more towards the standarized form
for interoperability.

>   all-dancing DLSw, it will still be DLSw.

Though users are aware of DLS, they are somewhat confused by it and
are not THAT aware of the standardization process.  The fact that
vendors are talking to each other and open to communication is
seen as such a positive that they often overlook what we are talking
about.  In this case, they are quite aware of the limitations to
interoperability and are awaiting the "dust to settle" so they can
make a better buying decision.

>   DLS Internetworking.)    :-)

:->>

>   each SIG member is free to post there whatever they wish.

Hypercom votes to keep the current name.  Things are confusing enough
that if we change the name now, our customers will only get more confused
("Yes we support 'open xxxx', but this is just an extended and
standardized form of DLS"  Would YOUR customers buy this line?  Our's
should wouldn't!).  Though the end result will have many extensions
and refinements over and above the current IBM implementation, I think
that our customers will understand a finalized RFC and IBM movement
better than changing the name at this point.

David Matusow
Hypercom