Subject: Re: Capabilities - renaming?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 13:15:06 PDT

Wayne Clark wrote:
Also, as I have been wrestling with the ambiguity between DLSw (the
    informational RFC) and DLSw (the working group standard).
    Sometimes, you can't say just "DLSw".  You have to place it in
    context.  What do others feel about calling the standard we're
    working on "ODLS" for Open Data Link Switching (analogous to OSPF)
    versus DLSw for the current Data Link Switching.  Since the
    standardization process is under the auspices of an open
    multivendor group, the term "open" seems appropriate.

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.

Louise

---

From: Anson Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 19:34:37 PDT

>could replace/update the informational RFC with the standard when

Louise:

   I agree that renaming may cause some confusion initially.
But I would like to bring to your attention what I see as a
potential problem (based on some router customers' feedback.)  

   Data Link Switching as it is presented to "users/customers"
today is the 6611 implementation.   The standardized DLSw
may not necessary be totally compatible with today's 6611 
implementation.  By then, vendors may find it nessary to 
distinguish between the two (for customers).  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.

   Open/DLS, or ODLS seems to be an appropriate name because:

1. DLSw is an OPEN and evolving standard, not an implementation.

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

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.)  

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

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

Anson Chen
Cisco Systems
--