Subject: Re: your mail

From: "Ed Tremblay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 15:34:38 EDT

This is the second (for some the first) test of the AIW General mailing
list.  If this works well (or at least as well as the DLSw SIG list),
another note about the AIW Internet system will follow.
 
But while I'm sending this, I'm going to piggyback on it another piece
of business.
 
Three people (including myself) have independently suggested using DLUS
and DLUR as replacement acronyms for Dependent LU Server and Dependent
LU Requester.  With these you don't have to rename the function as well
as the acronyms.
 
I'm interested in your feedback on two decisions:
 
     1) If DLUS and DLUR are OK, should the function name be
        DLUS/DLUR or DLUS/R (I like DLUx - pronounced deluxe) or
        something else?
 
     2) If not DLUS and DLUR, then what?
 
I've got to change a lot of instances and diagrams in the spec, so the
deadline for entries will be April 30.  Please send your entries to
[email-masked] (to keep my regular ID from getting swamped -
how's that for optimism?).  Thanks.
 
Ed Tremblay

---

From: "M.M. Gearhart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 19:06:17 -0500 (CDT)

How about something simple like: DLR and DLS, it seems easier to say and
the acronym could still be DLx.

---

From: John Pickens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 17:28:21 -0700

How about DLU/s and DLU/r?  And for the overall function name,
what's wrong with the APPN option set number?  And/or DLU?
 
(I don't know about Deals and Dealers.)
 
JP

 

 

  Ed Tremblay

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 07:32:40 PDT

John, the problem with "DLU" standing alone by itself is that it
collides with the historial acronym for "Destination LU"  (recall DLU,
ILU and OLU).
 
Ed, I presume the interest in changing Dependent LU Requester/Server is
the acronym collision with Data Link Switching?  Data Link Switching
seems to have been migrating to DLSw since DLS/DLR was proposed and,
even though it is fairly pervasive, the transformation appears only
partially complete.
 
Squatter's rights for "DLS" should have been exercised at the start and
DLUS/DLUR would have been a whole lot more effective.  If the acronym
for Dependent LU Requester/Server is changed, occurrences of DLSw will have
to be changed back to DLS (!).
 
I do like the DLUx aspect of DLUR/DLUS since we often have to refer to
the 2 components of the architecture as a unit and "deluxe" is good way
to do this.  I guess this constitutes a vote for DLUR/DLUS.
 
Wayne Clark