Subject: proposed charter: pls review

From: "Lee M. Rafalow 919 254-4455, tl 444/4455" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 15:53:04 EDT

Louise & DLSw SIGers,

I'm sorry for the delay in providing IBM's response to the proposed DLSw
charter, but I was a little surprised since it was more than I had
requested.

That noted, I'll respond directly to the heart of the matter.  IBM wants
the Data Link Switching effort to remain as part of the AIW.  We offered
the AIW venue to provide more than just secretarial and legal services.
We believe there is value for all of us and our customers in our efforts
to seek industry solutions for common problems and to exploit synergy
(both technology and people interactions) where it might exist.

Further, we want the DLSw work to proceed swiftly.  We are interested in
results; we are not interested in protracted political/procedural
debates.  What I requested from the DLSw SIG leadership was a description
of a proposed scope of work and schedule: necessary parts of achieving
results.  I think a draft of the requested information is contained in
what's been provided but it also includes some posturing and a lot of
other procedural and membership stuff that, for the most part, duplicates
(and is sometimes inconsistent with) the AIW procedures and membership
agreement.  These other things are unnecessary for an AIW SIG since they
are already covered by the AIW procedures and membership agreement.

If, on the other hand, there is a consensus among the DLSw participants
that this work group should be more independent, then we are happy
to change the DLSw SIG into a BOF (like the MIB work groups).  In doing
so, the DLSw BOF participants would still be participating in the AIW
and the opportunity for synergies would be maintained.

I will attempt to extract the scope and schedule material for inclusion
in the draft technical plan.  We can then discuss this and our futures at
the AIW meeting next week.

Cheers, Lee

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 16:28:59 PDT

Lee -

    I thought that the conclusions we had made at the end of the last
    SIG regarding control of Data Link Switching were pretty clear.
    Evidently not.
    
    My comments are included below.

Regards,
-----------
Wayne Clark
cisco Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]
415/688-4627

>are already covered by the AIW procedures and membership agreement.

    I don't think you are going to find any resistance to wanting
    results.  Concerning duplication of items in the base charter ...
    what's the big deal?  I think Louise did a great job.

    As far as the political debate goes, none of the political
    bickering would have happened at the last SIG if IBM had been up
    front with regards to the rules and procedures of the AIW.  By
    agreeing in April to the AIW as the venue for DLSw activities, we
    were effectively buying a "pig in a poke" (no offense intended) but
    we were naive at the time.

    Then IBM (Jane Munn, in particular) got up and stated publicly in June
    that IBM would control all SIGs by:
	- appointing the chair,
	- establishing the charter, and
	- setting the agenda

    While no one is going to challenge IBM's rule over matters relative
    to APPN, IBM is but one company among many who has a DLSw-like
    product.  This was the root cause of the ruckus at the last DLSw
    SIG.

    A point of fact is that IBM is actually a latecomer into this
    market.  It's just that IBM documented theirs and thus created the
    market perception of a standard.

>and the opportunity for synergies would be maintained.

    Since most of the obstruction to progress for DLSw is centered around
    who controls the destiny of the SIG, I recommend that we either:
	(a) take you up on your offer to run it as a BOF, or
	(b) move it to an entirely different venue like the IETF.

    It's my understanding that (b) is highly undesireable.  I guess (a)
    means we'll have to meet in the evenings and miss the Durham Bulls
    games :-).

    I don't want to lose focus on the technical work being done but this
    topic does deserve some attention next week.