Subject: Wayne Clark's Note on DLSw and Openness

From: "T. M. Danninger ((919)-254-6328)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 10:20:29 EDT

>David -

 >    The goal of an open working group such as the DLSw SIG is that all
 >    members participate equally and that no one company attempt to
 >    dominate the process.  The tone of your statement below is one of
 >    IBM telling the other members of the SIG how things work.  If this
 >    is done from the perspective of an IBM rep to the SIG, that is
 >    fine.  If is done from the perspective of "we've got it all figured
 >    out and here is how it's done", then the openness of this SIG is in
 >    question.
    Wayne, it was done from the perspective of IBM's SIG rep.  My
    instructions to David were to document our in-progress work on DLSw.
    While we did document the shipped interfaces with RFC 1434, we did
    and do have enhancements in progress.  At least one of the other SIG
    members requested that we cut right to the chase; ie. if we've already
    completed significant work on any enhancement; document the work so
    it can be used as a starting point for discussions.  David's note
    attempts to distinguish our real, in-process development work from
    design "thinking" that we've done.  The only information I told him
    not to include was dates of any kind.
 >    In its present form, the AIW itself is really a tutorial with a
 >    suggestion box.  IBM sets the agenda and other companies pretty
 >    much follow along.  This is because with APPN, IBM is in direct
 >    control.  The DLSw SIG is different in that the member companies
 >    already have shipped products in this area and we are attempting to
 >    achieve some degree of convergence and interoperability.  That was
 >    our original intent and it still is today.
    Wayne, this is why we need to spend some time documenting and agreeing
    on a charter for the SIG.  As you point out we all have shipped
    products in this area, including us.  As I've mentioned it came as
    a surprise to me that there was general interest in going beyond an
    informational RFC on DLSw.  In the lunch conversation I interpreted
    that interest as wanting to use the DLSw as the starting point for
    a standard in this area.  Work on the DLSw is in three ranges of
    of completion, shipped, under development and planned.  Our intention
    continues to be openness in all these areas.  All of us, of course,
    have the problem of making a decision to either wait until the standar-
    dization work is complete before shipping a enhancement or ship early
    and take a risk. We do intend to continue developing features and
    we intend to work with the SIG members to define standards for those
    features as we all are in development.
 >    My prior statements regarding STUN (cisco's SDLC-to-SDLC) were in
 >    the spirit of: here is what we've discovered in this market and
 >    we're willing to share our experiences with the SIG.  It is
 >    presumptious for any one of the vendors in this market to assume
 >    they have it all figured out.
    Thanks Wayne; all input, I'm sure is welcomed by all the SIG
    members.  We don't have it all figured out.  We do have significant
    work under development on DLSw and wanted to share that with the
    SIG members in order to determine if our under-development directions
    for DLSw should be included as part of the base DLSw standard or
    should it be some other approach.  The technical discussions have
    already brought things to light that need to be addressed but we
    haven't had time to focus on yet.
 >    If you look at the way working groups in the IETF operate, there
 >    are usually implementations from a small finite number of vendors
 >    and those vendors work together to form a consistent, interoperable
 >    standard.  This means that ALL vendors have to be flexible.  The
 >    same level of consideration must be given to this effort.
    Wayne I don't disagree but it's my understanding that we're all
    pretty much agreed that the DLSw is the base starting point for this
    interoperability.

    Regards,

    Tom Danninger

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 08:38:55 PDT

Tom -

    I believe we are in agreement about what we are trying to
    accomplish with the DLSw SIG.  And, of course, using RFC 1434 as a
    base is the right thing to do.  It is a fine piece of work but, as
    we all agree, it needs to be extended to be truly useful to other
    vendors.

    The main issue that I was highlighting is one of parity.  Working
    with other vendors in an open forum like this SIG is a new
    direction for IBM and I'm just trying to be eternally vigil and
    make sure the playing field remains level.  After all, we *are*
    starting with an IBM specification and enhancing it.

    I suggest that we nail down an agenda for the June meeting fairly
    soon and that the issue of a SIG charter be put on the agenda.  

    Sound fair?

Wayne