Subject: Wayne Clark's Offer to Present STUN

From: "T. M. Danninger ((919)-254-6328)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 18:08:59 EDT

Wayne,

Just speaking for myself I'd be very interested in seeing the STUN
SDLC to SDLC approach that CISCO has.  However, I, personally, am
unwilling to use SIG time to see it.  It is not on the matrix and my
preference would be that we find another forum to explore it as it
appears that we're going to be very pressed to address the key items
on the matrix.

Regards,

Tom Danninger

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:42:13 PDT

>appears that we're going to be very pressed to address the key items

Tom -

    There are two things that I wanted to demonstrate to the SIG early
    in the process before the working group got too far down the path
    with DLSw as it is today:
	(1) SSP is designed specifically for a DLC protocol that has a
	    discovery mechanism (i.e. LLC2), and
	(2) by DLSw providing complete DLC termination of everything
	    (including in the Disconnected state), you're making life
	    very difficult for yourselves.

    To state it bluntly, number (1) means that SDLC-to-SDLC cannot be
    accommodated in DLSw as it stands today.  Number (2) means that
    NT 2.1 support will be a whole lot more complicated with DLSw than
    it needs to be.
    
    After seeing SSP, it became real obvious why the 6611 only
    supported LLC2-to-LLC2 and LLC2(host)-to-SDLC(remote).  I do
    believe SSP can be extended to handle non-LLC2 connections (i.e.
    SDLC, QLLC, channel, etc.) but it is definitely not there today.

    Given the proposed agenda:
	  - 5 45 (+/-) minutes sessions

	  - Session 1:  Flow Control
	  - Session 2:  NT 2.1 Support
	  - Session 3:  Capabilities Exchange
	  - Session 4:  General discussion of technical matters not
	      discussed in previous sessions
	  - Session 5:  Charter discussion

    Session 2 is unnecessary if the SIG listens to the alternative approach
    that I'm alluding to above.  NT 2.1 support (i.e. XID3 negotiation)
    comes for free if you allow TEST and XID passthrough.  Simple, but
    elegant ... and it works.

    What do other members feel?  Vote fast!

Wayne

P.S. Tom, it is on the matrix ... that's what the entry "SDLC" was supposed
     to mean.  Robin Layland is right - we've got to explain what these
     bullet items stand for.

---

From: [email-masked] (Himanshu C. Shah)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 09:26:15 EDT

I am all for the extending of SSP to accomodate other features.
However, I dislike the procedure in which it is done. 

I strongly believe that starting point of a proposal should be the
the electronic mail. A lot can be achieved if issues are
massaged before the actual meeting.

I sense a lot of jockeying and may be element of surprise is used for
those reasons. Unfortunately, it compromises expediency aspects of RFC
extensions.

Himanshu