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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 10:42:21 PDT

INVITATION TO DISCUSSION

ISSUE:  The idea of pursuing DLSw as an IETF standard as 
well as an AIW standard has caused considerable 
controversy, both during the last AIW meeting and since 
then. 

NEW DATA:  At the IETF meeting at the end of March, we 
received some additional information that we did not 
have when we discussed this topic in February.  The main 
point is that the IETF will not accept our proposal 
based on the consensus we reached at the last meeting. 

RECOMMENDATION:  I believe it would be helpful for the 
DLSw RIG to further discuss this topic over the network, 
with the goal (if possible) of reaching a consensus 
before the next meeting in June.

CONTENTS:  This message contains a backgrounder followed 
by points for and against four possible relationships 
the DLSw RIG may choose to have with the IETF:
1)  No relationship at all.
2)  Post AIW DLSw closed pages as an informational RFC.  
3)  Pursue DLSw IETF standard after AIW DLSw closed 
        pages.
4)  Pursue DLSw IETF standard in parallel with pursuing 
        AIW closed pages.

ACTION ITEM:  Please read this message completely before 
responding.  If several people at your organization are 
involved with DLSw, please confer with them before 
responding.  

BEWARE:  Communicating in writing has inherent risks!  
We lose the tone of voice and all the non-verbal 
information.  Therefore, there is much more risk of 
misunderstanding.  Please be cautious when you write and 
be patient when you read what someone else has written.  
Acrimonious debate on this topic will hurt all those who 
are genuinely interested in a common DLSw standard.  

REMINDER:  Our group operates under the consensus model.  
We work together with a common interest.  Decisions are 
made by considering alternatives and choosing based on 
general agreement and absence of significant opposition.  

----------
BACKGROUND
----------

COMMON INTEREST:  In early 1993, a group of vendors, 
including IBM, discussed taking Informational RFC 1434 
Data Link Switching and further enhancing it to be an 
industry standard.  This is the basis of our common 
interest.

GOALS:  The early goal, to my recollection, was to 
develop, as quickly as possible, an interoperable 
specification. 

FORUM:  Both the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 
and the APPN Implementers Workshop (AIW) were considered 
as possible venues for developing the DLSw standard.  
Because more of the interested vendors sent representatives 
to the AIW than to the IETF, the AIW was chosen.

FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH IETF:  At that early time, 
there was some discussion and a general agreement that 
we would have an eventual relationship with the IETF.  
However, some people remember this goal as "updating the 
informational RFC with another informational RFC" while 
some people remember this goal as "taking the completed 
AIW DLSw standard to the IETF to become also an IETF 
standard."  There are no records on this.

FEBRUARY AIW -- CONSENSUS REGARDING A 
RELATIONSHIP WITH IETF:  
At the Feburary AIW meeting, the DLSw Related 
Interest Group (RIG) considered this topic in great 
detail.  Several consensus items emerged from this 
meeting.  (They are included in detail in the DLSw 
meeting minutes which have been posted to the DLSw mail 
list.)  In summary, the group decided to pursue an IETF 
standard rather than an informational RFC if and only if 
certain conditions could be met.  These conditions 
included:
     	Change control: The AIW DLSw meeting and network 
would be the only forums for changing the document -- 
changes can be proposed by but not made by the DLSw 
group at the general IETF meetings.
	Intellectual property rights:  Only companies that 
have signed agreements to respect intellectual property 
rights with either the AIW or the IETF can make 
submissions for the DLSw standard.
	Leadership:  The same chair and editor were 
selected for both the AIW and IETF DLSw groups, to 
minimize problems with consistency.  The group also 
selected a vice-chair to cover any IETF meetings the 
chair cannot attend.

CURRENT RELATIONSHIP WITH IETF:  On March 29, in 
conjunction with the IETF general meeting in Seattle, 
the first DLSw Birds of a Feather (BoF) was held.  The 
IETF Area Director for this topic area, Stev Knowles, 
was present.  Stev provided information on IETF 
operations that conflicts with several of our consensus 
items:
	Change control:  The IETF can accept that the AIW 
DLSw RIG meeting can be concommitantly the IETF DLSw 
working group meeting.  However, the IETF will not allow 
the DLSw group at the IETF general meeting to be only a 
figurehead group -- they must be allowed to make submissions 
if they wish.  However, Stev Knowles noted that no final 
decisions can be made at the IETF meeting:  Final decisions
can only be made over the network - so while someone might
miss the discussions at the meeting, they do not miss the
opportunity to participate in decisions if they do not attend 
IETF.  However, this would also constrain the AIW DLSw
meeting if we were also acting as the IETF working group:  
we would need to propose ALL consensus items to the network
to get final decisions.
	Intellectual property rights:  IETF participants do 
not sign agreements.  The IETF has intellectual property 
guidelines that it encourages participants to adhere to, 
but these are not legally binding.  This leads to the 
risk that someone may make a proposal that is accepted 
as part of the standard and then later reveal that it is 
covered by a patent and demand payments. 
	Leadership:  The IETF Area Director usually accepts 
the group's proposed leaders and usually only replaces 
them for long-term non-performance.

The first two of these are important issues for several 
companies and may be show-stoppers for some.  That is, 
some  participants may be unwilling or unable (by 
company policy) to proceed with IETF under these conditions.

In summary, IETF has told us that the change control and 
intellectual property rights preferences of the AIW DLSw 
RIG are not possible.  We must therefore consider what 
relationship we want with the IETF given these 
conditions.

-----------------
END OF BACKGROUND
-----------------

--------
OPTIONS
--------

There are four possible relationships the DLSw RIG may 
choose to have with the IETF:
1)  No relationship at all.
2)  Post AIW DLSw closed pages as an informational RFC.  
3)  Pursue DLSw IETF standard serially, after AIW DLSw 
closed pages.
4)  Pursue DLSw IETF standard in parallel with pursuing 
AIW closed pages. 

(It should be noted that, for the first three options, nothing 
happens until closed pages while, in the fourth option, we
would start interacting with IETF immediately.  Therefore,
if we decide not to choose option 4, we could defer choosing
from among the other options until we reach closed pages.
Personally, I would prefer this debate done and over, unless
there will be information we will have at the time we reach
closed pages that we do not and cannot have now.)

Below, I present the points I have heard in favor of and 
opposed to each of these possibilities.  In your 
responses, please include additional points.

Also, as far as possible, note the relative importance 
of each of the points for you in developing your 
position.  This is important to avoid endless "Tastes 
Great!  Less Filling!" debates where two points may both 
be true but the issue is how important each is to YOU.

It is also not useful to derrogate another's comment by
reposting their comment and attempting to expose how
stupid it is.  Instead, please focus on what is important
and less important for you, your company, and your
customers, that is "We want X." rather than "They are
ignorant/obstructionist/immature for wanting Y."

(Example  1: "My customers think that an IETF standard 
is enormously safer to invest in than an informational 
RFC."  or  "My customers don't care whether it is an 
IETF standard or informational RFC -- it's just a check-
list item they need to keep management off their 
backs.") 

(Example 2:  "I just need a standard of some kind as 
soon as possible, whether from AIW or IETF I don't 
care."  or  "Timing matters, but isn't as much a concern 
for my company, since we have a successful proprietary 
solution.  So we need DLSw to have the status of an IETF 
standard before we'll build and sell it instead of 
ours.")

(Example 3:  "I'd like to trust in human decency and 
honor, but my company and users won't invest in a 
standard that has the risk of something like the 
Soderblom patent blowing up."  or  "Of course, there's 
some risk with the IETF, but DLSw is so far along that 
the risk is insignificant compared to the advantages to 
my selling an 'IETF standard.'")

In conclusion, please:

1)	State which option you prefer.

2)	State the points why this option is important to you
	or why another option is not possible/popular with you.

3)	Do NOT copy this entire posting with your message.
	It will obscure your message.

4)	Do NOT copy another person's posting with your
	message.   Instead, you can refer to another posting 
	by saying something like, "While I understand that X 
	X is an important consideration to XYZ company, 
	I believe A is more important to our customers."

NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL
----------------------

Points in favor to NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL:
o	Less confusion:  a single standard from a single 
body.
o	No impact on companies already attending AIW but 
not IETF.
o	Change control in a single body
o	Intellectual property rights protected by AIW 
agreement
o	Fastest delivery of a single DLSw specification
o	Less confusion in the press and with users

Points opposed to NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL:
o	Industry respect for IETF published RFC, whether 
informational or standard.  (AIW is not well known.)
o	RFC 1434 would remain "on the books" rather than 
being updated/replaced.

INFORMATIONAL RFC
-----------------

Points in favor of INFORMATIONAL RFC:
o	Change control in a single body
o	Openly published:  Available to all interested 
parties.  
o	Intellectual property rights protected by AIW 
agreement
o	No impact on companies already attending AIW 
but not IETF - no concern about attending 6 meetings 
instead of 3 or worrying about what "they" will do at 
IETF if my company doesn't attend.
o	Faster delivery of a single DLSw specification
o	Less confusion in the press and with users

Points opposed to INFORMATIONAL RFC:
o	Additional industry respect for IETF standard over 
IETF informational RFC.
o	Our reputation might be damaged if we backed away 
from IETF standard at this point, because of all the 
press attention.

PURSUE IETF STANDARD SERIALLY, AFTER AIW 
STANDARD COMPLETE
-------------------------------------------------

Points in favor of SERIAL -- IETF AFTER AIW:
o	Group meeting at AIW maintains change control for 
at least the first release.
o	Group meeting at AIW maintains intellectual 
property rights constraints at least in the first 
release.
o	Less expensive for companies that do not usually 
send people to both AIW and IETF.
o	Because of the press coverage, the industry is
now expecting an IETF standard.
o	Would probably take less time to complete AIW 
DLSw closed pages if done before working with IETF.

Points opposed to SERIAL -- IETF AFTER AIW:
o	Some customers will balk at products based on AIW 
standard, waiting for the IETF "real thing," even if 
there are minimal changes.
o	The further in time the IETF standard is removed 
from the AIW standard, there is a greater risk of 
increased differences between them.  (Rough estimate:
9-12 months between AIW DLSw closed pages and 
IETF DLSw standard if done serially.)
o	The fewer companies that attend the IETF general 
meeting may exert greater influence than they could if 
only meeting at AIW.
o	Our users will be confused by the existence of two 
standards, even if they are almost identical.

PURSUE IETF STANDARD IN PARALLEL, WHILE 
COMPLETING AIW 
STANDARD
------------------------------------------------------

Points in favor of PARALLEL -- IETF DURING AIW:
o	Change control may be a minor concern 
because:  The AIW tends to meet about one month 
before each IETF meeting, so there would be little time in 
that month for new submissions to be made about which 
the IETF group might make a decision.
o	The chair, vice-chair, and editor can manage 
consistency between the AIW and IETF meetings.
o	Since the two standards would come out closer 
together in time, they would more likely be more similar
than if done in serial.
o	Because of the press coverage, the industry is
now expecting an IETF standard.
o	May get some valuable input from IETF community 
instead of being insulated in the SNA/APPN community.

Points opposed to PARALLEL -- IETF DURING AIW:
o	Group that meets during IETF general meeting may 
need lots of 'bringing up to speed,' wasting valuable 
time.
o	Group that meets during IETF general meeting may 
make changes that were already debated and decided at 
the AIW -- ping-pong effect.
o	The fewer companies that attend the IETF general 
meeting may exert greater influence than they could if 
only meeting at AIW.
o	Our users will be confused by the existence of two 
standards, even if they are almost identical.
o	Delivery time of a completed standard may be slowed
down due to the efforts of coordination: bringing two
groups up to speed on what each other is doing.
(Rough estimate:  Impossible to say, but could delay AIW 
DLSw closed pages

---

From: [email-masked] (John R. Pickens)
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 09:45:47 -0700 (PDT)

Louise, good summarization of the options.  Might I offer an opinion?

In the interest of minimizing time to market it would be a pity
to get tied up in the politics of standards turf battles.  If the
IETF procedures are incapable of accepting the work of an external
multvendor consortium as an IETF standard, then so be it.  

The alternatives then would seem clear.  

My suggestion would be to finish the multivendor AIW standard for
DLS and publish it as an informational RFC (which is a great vehicle for
text distribution).  Meanwhile if someone feels a need to create an
IETF working group, go for it.  This is a society in which freedom
of choice is a well defended right.  Should such a working group
be formed, liason functions can be formed between that group and
the AIW, if anyone has the energy or gumption for it.

There are many examples of multiple standards bodies working on related 
and sometimes overlapping work, however unsavory.  I myself have been part 
of a standards effort where the primary effort was split between IEEE 802 
and ITU (i.e. 802 prime for some work, ITU prime for other), and in 
which liason efforts were also needed with ANSI.  No big deal.  

Probably too much ado is being made over the rigid procedures of
IETF/AIW.  And probably too much energy is being consumed over a
unattainable objective, the creation of a common document that
is blessed by both AIW and IETF as a standard.

JP