Subject: DLSw CP Status: Call for Consensus

From: [email-masked] (Scott Barvick)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:45:15 -0500 (EST)

__X___   Bay Networks believes that the proposed document posted on December 23,
Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should be approved
for CP status.

Scott Barvick
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Chiong" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Jan 1995 12:35:52 -0800

__x__   ACC believes that the proposed document posted on December 23,
Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should be approved
for CP status.

John Chiong 
(Advanced Computer Communications)
[email-masked]

---

From: Bill Kwan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 16:29:07 EST

_X___   CrossComm believe that the proposed document posted on 
December 23, Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should 
be approved for CP status.

Regards,
Bill Kwan
[email-masked]

---

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:53:00 -0500

In message "DLSw CP Status: Call for Consensus", you write:

On behalf of Northern Telecom, I believe that the proposed document posted
on December 23, Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should be
approved for CP status.

---

From: Dave Kasberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 11:04:35 -0800

__X__ Hewlett-Packard believes that the proposed document posted on
December 23, Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should be
approved for CP status.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dave Kasberg                [email-masked]            (916) 785-4763
               Hewlett-Packard - Roseville Networks Division
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: David McDonell 13-Jan-1995 1445 -0500 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 14:47:42 EST

Louise, Alan, et al:

__X__   Digital Equipment Corporation believes that the proposed document 
posted on December 23, Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should 
be approved for CP status.

We furthermore offer the following few minor editorial comments for possible 
inclusion into the final document -- however our vote is NOT contingent on the 
inclusion. (Page/paragraph references are to 016 *Postscript* version.)

	- section 2 (Overview), second paragraph p.5: to the novice reader
	it isn't apparent whether the LLC2-over-WAN bridging timeout behavior
	described is a shortcoming of standard tunnelling/bridging or a 
	characteristic of DLSw (although it becomes more clear in the
	paragraph that follows).  Suggested tweak: change the 3rd sentence
	of the (2nd) paragraph to read "When *conventional* bridging is used
	over wide area lines..."

	- same section, bottom p.6, last sentence begins "For circuit
	establishment,...".  Should qualify the (first use of) term "circuit" 
	w/ the DLSw definition.  (End-to-end association of DLC entities,
	identified by SA, SSAP, DA, DSAP or circuit IDs w/ node IDs, etc.)

	- section 3.5 (Message Types), top p.17: the statement "values not 
	listed are reserved...for future use" is confusing.  Are we simply
	reserving the right to augment this list in the future?  It almost
	reads like there are listed commands without values (??).

	- more terminology nit-picking: first sentence in section 5 (top of
	page 21) references (for the first time, I think) "...a single
	*connection*...through the Data Link Switch."  If you mean 
	"connection", then (first reference) define it -- although I think 
	this should actually read "...describe the states for a single
	circuit over a transport connection...", no?

	- general comment: I know this has come up before, but the document
	is LLC2-centric (over SDLC) in that there remain many references to
	SABME without regard to	SNRM/E (e.g. DLC_CONTACTED is defined as the
	"receipt of a SABME...".  Maybe a qualifying footnote on the first 
	mention of SABME (or the substituion of the "DLC mode-setting command"
	generalization) is in order.

	- general comment (most likely for the future): we feel that a better
	coupling between the main and two explorer FSMs would vastly improve
	the clarity of the document.  (Ideally something akin to the 
	cross-references of, for example, the CP.CS FSMs the IBM APPN FAPL
	(node reference) document.)

David McD

**************************************************************************
David McDonell                          email: [email-masked]
Networks Engineering, LKG1-3/A10                   telephone: 508 486 7126
Digital Equipment Corporation                            fax: 508 486 7438
550 King Street
Littleton, MA 01460
**************************************************************************

---

From: Gilbert Moineau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 16:10:00 PST

Eicon believes that the proposed document posted on December 23,
Editor's Version 0.16 (proposed CP document), should be approved
for CP status.

If you believe differently, please post your comments "post haste."

Thank you!
   Louise Herndon Wells