Subject: comments to the DLUR draft

From: kem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 93 16:10:22 MET

Mon Jul  5 12:46:55 MET 1993

Some comments to the APPN DLUR Architecture draft document.

1.      The used terminology should be consistent throughout the document;
	the use of CP-SVR muddles up with CPSVCMGR.
	The term CP-SVR and CPSVRMGR are used with both
	extentions 'pipe' and 'session'. I recommend the following usage of
	this terminology:
	The term CP-SVR-pipe should be used to refer to the sessions between
	DLUS and DLUR for carrying SSCP-PU and SSCP-LU messages in general.
	Thus, this term comprises both sessions between DLUS and DLUR.
	To refer to just one of these sessions the term CPSVRMGR-session
	should be used. In order to refer to a specific of these sessions,
	CPSVRMGR-conwinner or CPSVRMGR-conlooser should be used.

2.      Page 5-5, chapter 5.5.2
	The first sentence uses the new term association instead of session.
	Are there any reasons for that?

3.      In chapter 5.3.2 (Dynamic DLUS Node Determination) this enhancement
	of the DLUR architecture is announced.
	What about the other way round: Dynamic DLUR Node Determination?

4.      In chapter 6.1.2 (Internal PU Identification) you differentiate
	between local and downstream PUs. It doesn't matter for the architecture
	whether the Node Type 2.0 is local or downstream, cause IDBLK/IDNUM
	has to be carried in the GDS X'1500' anyway. It's a matter of a
	specific product and not one of the architecture.

5.      On page 5-2 at the end of 2nd paragraph there is a reference to
	byte 8 bit 8 of XID3. The correct spelling should be
	'byte 8-9 bit 8', that's the way SNA-Formats descibes it.

6.      Last but not least, the final architecture document should describe
	the architecture using FSM's and not just flow diagramms.

Regards
Willi Kemmerling