Subject: DLSw Activity

From: [email-masked] (PNGacek)
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 13:43:57 MDT

Shanon

I have to disagree with your statement about documenting SDLC support in 
the RFC. While I don't disagree that one can take the RFC as it stands 
today and have a good stab at implementing a working product, I do 
believe it is appropriate to include more information on SDLC, whether it 
be on TEST processing, link activation or whatever. The RFC is very LLC 
end - end centric. You and I may have the benefit of having worked on 
conversion products before but others may not. If one of the goals of the 
RFC is to provide information on how something works then it seems only 
natural to include SDLC specific information. 

Regards Paul Gacek
Novell

---

From: "Shannon Nix" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 12:17:03 EST

>natural to include SDLC specific information. 

Paul,

I will try qualify my statements regarding SDLC support.  My perception of 
the scope of the work undertaken by this SIG is to specify 
what is necessary to produce interoperable DLSw implementations.  I had, 
therefore, interpreted that effort as concisely describing the interactions 
between DLSw implementations.  IBM have provided a good foundation for that 
work with the Switch-to-Switch Protocol (SSP) described in RFC1434. 

To date, I have seen no compelling argument which would imply that SSP 
should get "thicker" to support SDLC ( one possible exception being 
enhanced diagnostic capabilities - ala LPDA).  I certainly appreciate the 
issues that face an DLSw implementor choosing to terminate SDLC links of 
any flavor.  They are many of the same issues that Netlink and other 
vendors have been solving in the field for the last two years. I simply 
view them as boundary issues for a DLSw implementor rather than 
interoperability issues.

If this group desires a broader scope for their work, that is, describing 
all aspects of DLSw function rather than simply how DLSw implementations 
interoperate, then add Netlink to the SDLC interest matrix as an very 
interested party. There are certainly a number of SDLC termination issues.  
My point is, that vendors may have varied solutions to these issues and 
still interoperate by conforming to an RFC1434-like spec.

What are this group's feeling as to the scope of this effort?  Perhaps, as 
Wayne originally suggested, drafting a charter would help clarify this 
scope?  

Rgds, Shannon
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)   Shannon Nix    (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)      Netlink, Inc.     (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  3214 Spring Forest Rd.   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Raleigh N.C. 27604 USA   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Phone:  (919)-878-8612   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Fax:    (919)-872-2132   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Internet: [email-masked] (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)