Subject: CP call for consensus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 09:50:06 PST

Happy New Year, Data Link Switchers!

This is a reminder that the proposed CP document was posted
before Christmas.  It is on the networking.raleigh.ibm.com 
server and can be FTP'd.  It was also emailed to each of you,
in pieces, through the aiw-dlsw list.   (So, if you are reading
this, you received it.)  If you cannot FTP and accidently
deleted your ascii version while deleting your 1000 email messages
from the hoidays, contact Alan Bartky to get a new copy.

Please review it and get your comments and/or CONSENSUS! in
as soon as possible.  Next Friday, January 13, is the final 
day!  But you can always do it NOW!   

Hoping to hear from all of you very soon.

Regards,
   Louise Herndon Wells
   (408) 946-4625
   Internetwork Technology Institute
   2021 Stratford Drive
   Milpitas, CA  95035

---

From: Paul Brittain <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 20:15:00 GMT

Louise, Alan et al:

This email represents concensus to revision 0.16 for Closed Pages from Data 
Connection.  Well done all round - and special thanks to Alan for all his 
hard work.

There are a number of typos or clarifications that we have spotted in the CP 
document as described below.  However our concensus to CP for 0.16 is _NOT_ 
conditional on any of these minor corrections.

Paul Brittain
Data Connection

MINOR CORRECTIONS TO 0.16
=========================

All page numbers/corrections listed below are based on the TEXT version of 
0.16.

Section 2, Page 6:
==================

Paragraph 5, line 2 - delete the extra space between 'connection' and 
'-oriented'

Section 3, Page 8:
==================

Last paragraph, last line - delete the extra space between 'source-' and 
'routed'

Section 3.5, Page 20:
=====================

Last paragraph of section - remove the first sentence starting 'Any SSP 
message types not defined above ...' as it is a less clear version of the 
rest of this paragraph.

Section 5.1, Page 23:
=====================

First paragraph of section, second sentence - replace 'eleven possible 
states' with 'thirteen possible states' (!)

Section 5.2.1, Page 30:
=======================

Second last paragraph of section - correct the sentence:

"The DISCONNECTED state is exited upon the sending of receipt of a 
CANUREACH_cs message by a prospective target Data Link Switch"

by replacing it with:

"The DISCONNECTED state is exited upon the sending of a CANUREACH_cs by the 
origin DLSw or the receipt of a CANUREACH_cs message by a prospective target 
Data Link Switch."

This change brings the text in line with the state table.

The following sentence should read "In the later case..." not " In the 
former case...".

The note following this paragraph should be moved to the end of section 
5.2.3 as it applies to the ICR case not CUR.

Section 5.2.3, Page 32:
=======================

The existing note at the end of this paragraph is confusing and should be 
removed - the paragraph above it explains things perfectly adequately.

Chapter 7, page 64:
===================

An short additional section between 7.2 and 7.3 on the use of the Initial 
Capex would make the flow clearer for people who are not familiar with our 
RIG discussions.  Please consider adding the following:

7.3  Initial Capabilities Exchange

Capabilities exchange is always the first SSP message sent on a new SSP 
connection between two DLSw switches.  This initial Capabilities Exchange is 
used to identify the DLSw version that each switch is running and other 
required information, plus details of any optional extensions that the 
switches are capable of supporting.

If a DLSw receives an initial capabilities message that is incorrectly 
formatted or contains invalid or unsupported data that prevents correct 
interoperation with the partner DLSw, it should issue a Capabilities 
Exchange negative response.

If a DLSw receives a negative response to its initial capabilities message, 
it should take down its TCP connections with the offended partner.

Note:  Pre v1.0 DLSw implementations do not send or respond to capabilities 
messages and can be identified by the lack of capabilities exchange as the 
first message on a new SSP connnection.  This document does not attempt to 
specify how to interoperate with back-level DLSw implementations.

Section 7.5, page 65:
=====================

The first and second sentences convey the same information, but the first is 
clearer.  Delete the second sentence of this section.

Section 7.5.3, Page 67:
=======================

Add the following clarification (c.f. section 8.5) to the end of this 
section:

Note:  The pacing window size must be non-zero.

Section 8.9.1, Page 91:
=======================

Add an additional protocol violation:

5.   Receiver attempts to increment the window size beyond 0xFFFF.

---

From: Felix Lin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:04:19 -0800

This email represents concensus to revision 0.16 for Closed Pages from 3COM.

Following is a minor clarification that we have spotted. However our concensus
 to CP for 0.16 is not conditioned on its correction.

Felix Lin
3COM

Section 7. Page 57
------------------

2nd paragraph, since we are talking about Capabiliies Exchange Request here
(only Capabiliies Exchange Request has multiple type "LT" fields), the phrase
"Capabiliies Exchange" probably should be changed to "Capabiliies Exchange Request".