Subject: re: DLSw: "To IETF or not to IETF..."

From: [email-masked] (Scott Barvick)
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 10:54:50 -0400 (EDT)

In response to the question "To IETF or not to IETF...",
Wellfleet's view is based on two important considerations; the 
need for a standard and the AIW's ability to effectively produce the
standard.

1) We need a reference point that everyone can refer to which
indicates the operation and interoperability expected from a standard.
This reference point currently is RFC 1434.  It has been very effective
in defining what our product is, what it does, and who it will work with.
Customers have not been concerned about its status as an 
Informational RFC.  It is referred to by the AIW and customers as 
"RFC 1434", not "for information only RFC 1434".  Unless someone
actively attempts to FUD the issue with the fact that it is not 
some sort of IETF-processed document, customers know exactly
what the scope is, who is working on it, and where it is going.
Having an RFC designation is useful because the industry likes to
have an RFC # to reference a particular piece of functionality, but
an administrative distinction between informational and "real" is
not critical when customers understand how the RFC was developed. 

2) Our representatives from the SNA world are committed to the AIW
and have not generally attended the IETF.  It is basically a time
constraint.  It appears that the IETF will not be a forum that just
accepts the work done by the people who really know the issues and are
actually building the products.  Louise's mail indicates a few 
differences in operation between the IETF and the AIW which will 
undoubtedly slow down the process.  Serially or in parallel,
even work unhindered by IETF rules (which we did not develop as
in the AIW), will delay delivery of a "standard" defining new DLSw
operation.  I am confident that many of the IETF contributors
who want to contribute to the DLSw standard will not
have the time to attend AIW meetings in order to become familiar
with the background and current issues.

These two important arguments lead us to support the informational
RFC as our relationship with the IETF.  We will get a standard 
which defines the interoperability of our products for our customers
without using our already limited time on duplicated effort.

Scott Barvick
[email-masked]