Subject: Re: Consensus on DLSw backward compatibility testing at Connectathon

From: [email-masked] (Ravi C. Periasamy)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:56:58 -0400

Hi Louise, and Dlswers,

First of all, I liked Peter's note. In it he had changed the subject
line to "RFC 1434+". That says it all. It is not RFC 1434 but a "+".

So what are we going to test. Since there is no such thing as "RFC 1434 +",
take RFC 1434, add a couple of messages for good measure, delete a few
while you are at it, get the state machine from IBMs ftp server, and
add some parts of the 1795 document. AND there you may have 1434 +.

Now, why would we all want to do 1434+ compatibility testing? Do we
consider 1795 somehow NOT as complete as 1434+. I thought 1795 was a
superset of 1434+. So if all of us test 1795, we should be done.
I can understand testing for 1434+ if some of the vendors do not have
1795 yet, but have some implementation of DLSw and don't want to be
left out of the DLSw bandwagon.

So without a document describing 1434+, how do we decide if a said
implementation is 1434+ or 1434++ and so on. And who decides that?
This I am sure was Wayne's point in clearly less number of words.

>Data link switchers:
>
>I am dismayed by the amount of discussion about the 1434 testing for
>this connect-a-thon, and particularly appalled at Wayne's uncalledfor
>jab at IBM in this forum.

So it really works. All Wayne has to do is send a mail, that sure gets
attention. I am sure Wayne did this as a way to say "Now that we have
your attention.....".

Was the note considered strong because it talked about IBM? Some old
mail that I have saved, indeed has resorted to name calling and the
target was a different company. But I do not remember such an uproar
then. But, let's not spend time on that.

<<< 1434 testing details deleted >>>

>Stop the name-calling, the slurs, the innuendos, and the insults.  If to
>you, this issue is "who cares?", then keep your fingers off the keyboard.
>This kind of behavior is beneath us and counter-productive, and I will
>not tolerate it.

Here I am confused. It is probably just me (I should have studied better
for my TOEFL!!!). Please explain. The first part of the statement says
"Stop the name-calling" But the rest of the statement and the following
one resorts to just about that. Me missing something?

>If there is any significant, intelligent concern about my stating
>consensus on this issue, please post it.  Otherwise, this issue is closed.
>Let s get on with the business of serving our customers.

First of all there is no "backward" compatibility for DLSw standard. We
are at version One.

Moreover, What you have stated is not consensus on this issue.
It is an executive decision taken by you, in the middle of a discussion.
The discussion started not very long ago, and I saw less than half a
dozen mails on this thread. We have gone through longer discussions for
matters less significant than this. Hey, but then "who's John Galt?".

Sincerely,

Ravi Periasamy,
[email-masked]

>Regards,
>Louise Herndon Wells

---

From: Phil Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:06:07 -0700

Who's John Galt, and what does she know about data link switching?