Subject: DLSw Capabilities Siglet Minutes

From: "Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 13:01:44 PDT

Minutes of Capabilities Siglet of the Data Link Switching SIG:
Chair: Wayne Clark, Cisco Systems
Note Taker: Alan K. Bartky, Sync Research
Meeting Start time: September 4:20 PM

The meeting was started with Wayne Clark as Chair and he put up 
the following slide for purposes of discussion:

(1) Shall DLSw be broken up into a base + option set?

(2) What comprises the base set?

(3) What Features comprise the options sets?

(4) Should a vendor ID be included in the capabilities exchange?

(5) TCP vs. UDP (for use in capabilities exhchange messages)

(6) Is it desirable to have a directory name server?

(7) Should CANUREACH/ICANREACH be optional?

First a discussion of base versus option sets was discussed.

The first proposal for the base set was:

RFC1434 + Add capabilities + DLSw MIB + ENTER/EXIT busy - NetBIOS

A discussion of ENTER/EXIT busy was held and it was decided to take
the recommendation from the Flow Control Siglet which was still 
discussing Base level versus optional flow control methods.

Consesus was reached to take the above base set plus recommendations
from the Flow Control and Connect/Disconnect Siglets.

Second a discussion of option sets was held.  Agreed options were:
NetBIOS
Loop Prevention
Priority and Class of Service
Advanced Flow Control (from Flow Control SIGlet)
CANUREACH List (added during CANUREACH discussions)

Third a discussion on CANUREACH was held:

There was discussion that the Connect/Disconnect SIGlet was reworking
the startup sequence into a two phase connect sequence of first 
discovery and then circuit establishment.  As far as CANUREACH being
optional, it was decided that since the sequence was changing, that
this topic was no longer applicable.

The discussion then centered on a CANUREACH list and other options
discussed were:
Option on Filtering Addresses.
A proposal for a Mask Method that could used to filter MAC addresses.
A discussion on the need for "SYS Genning" MAC addresses.

A summary of the CANUREACH list options was then proposed:
CANUREACH List
   (1) NONE
   (2) MAC address & MASK
   (3) System Defined MAC address List

Fourth a dicussion of VENDOR IDs was held.

One option discussed was a method where IBM would allocate Vendor IDs.
Another Option was the use of a Vendors OUI (IEEE Organizational 
Unique Identifier)

The use of codepoints was discussed with the possiblity of splitting
off trial/innovation codepoints.

Fifth a discussion on use of TCP versus UDP for interchange of 
capabilities messages was held.

A Consensus for use of TCP was reached (no UDP).

A discussion on the TCP connection setup was discussed in reference to the
submission by Scott Adams of Cayman Systems.  It was agreed to change it to 
PostScript format and post on an FTP server for further discussion.

Lastly a slide of ongoing work was posted by Wayne.  The two major
work items and their results of discussion are listed below:

(1) Format of the Capbilities exchange:

It was aggreed to use Standard GDS format with structured subfields vectors.

- Wayne Clark to refine work and post to Group.

(2) Finite State Machine for Capabilities:

- Initial Proposal to be submitted by IBM for the State Machine for the TCP connection
- Capabilities Recommendations to be submitted by Cisco and others.

Submitted: October 18,1993
Alan K. Bartky
Manager of Technology
Sync Research Inc.
7 Studebaker, Irvine CA. 92718-2013
(714) 588-2070, FAX: (714) 588-2080
Internet Email: [email-masked]