Subject: Test Plan Consensus

From: [email-masked] (Scott Barvick)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:36:17 -0400 (EDT)

I have a few comments.  

1) I did not receive Louise's mail.  I was able to get it from 
the archive, but I did receive the comment mail.  Others may be
in the same position.

2) I thought that we had reached a consensus.  We had a number
of strong positions for keeping the 1434 testing in the plan 
and the mail from Wayne stating:

>   Consider cisco's position on RFC1434 interoperability testing for
>   RFC1795 as a "who cares".

To me, that is a "no strong disagreement" consensus.  Anyway, if 
this is not the case, let's make an active attempt to make a 
decision and move on.

3) I think the whole discussion of "+" and "++" is non-
productive and misleading.  As far as RFC1434 is concerned,
we all know that it is a label that we use to describe 
DLSw products that have been proven to interoperate
in many customer environments.  In my mind, whether the initial 
spec was totally complete is irrelevant. These RFC1434 products provide
a certain base functionality that more DLSw 1795 vendors-to-be support
than don't.  There is a large installed customer base running 1434
who are very concerned about migration and interoperation with
the next generation of products.  I think this last statement
is the reason Connectathon participants want to take the 
opportunity with everyone in the same room to run tests which are
interesting to them and in line with their product goals.  It
is not much of a stretch to see how 1795 is an evolution, not
revolution for many vendors products, so labels and standards-lingo
aside, I think this is the correct forum for this type of testing.

4) The proposed test methodology sets vendors into groups of 4 each
day.  These vendors are free to do any testing desired, but it
is certainly recommended that the items on the test plan be 
considered because the equipment and support will be available.  I
had intended to run for all five days like this, depending on the
turnout.  If we assume that all vendors are interested in the
first several items on the test plan, this would provide relevant
testing on all days.  The end of each day was intended to be the
free period to go back over desired tests, try things not on the
plan, etc.  This keeps the vendors in the same working groups for
the whole day to minimize logistical problems.  Comments on this
overall plan would be appreciated.

Scott

---

From: Dave Lowry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:56:20 PDT

Scott,

> the archive, but I did receive the comment mail.  Others may be

You know, I only got part of that whole fiasco myself. I am unsure as
to what happened. But I think the alias being used changed at one
point. Probably for the best, judging from the content of the part I
saw. 

> this is not the case, let's make an active attempt to make a 

Wayne was not saying that Cisco does not care about the connect-a-thon
interoperability testing. He MUST have meant that we do not care about
whether our RFC1795 implementation interoperates with RFC1434. I
stated my ideas for a compromise in my last email. Is that acceptable?
It gives us all the freedom to do optional testing.

> DLSw products that have been proven to interoperate

You are right. It is non-productive to discuss RFC1434 at all. I am in
complete agreement. Let's not discuss any pre RFC1795 Version 1
implementations again. The focus of this list is RFC1795 Ver. 1
interoperability. Right?

> the next generation of products.  I think this last statement

Large is a relative term as you use it above.
The installed base for RSRB is considerably larger than the installed
base for all other pre RFC1795 products combined. We are addressing
those RSRB migration and compatability issues internally. Like we 
should. But, if this is your argument then are you suggesting we 
include RSRB backwark compatability testing be part of the 
connect-a-thon test plan? Take a guess where I might stand on
that issue ;-).

> aside, I think this is the correct forum for this type of testing.

Again...we still disagree. Our focus is and always has been RFC1795
Ver. 1. introperability. It is our one common goal.

> overall plan would be appreciated.

I agree with the format that puts the last part of the day for
optional tests. Rather than reconfiguring for a last day optional test
time. Shall we be so structured as to set at time for the optional
test to start? I suggest that the optional time should begin when the
two vendors agree it should start. Which would be after they complete
execution of the test plan.

I disagree with the idea that the test plan is optional. I think that
the test plan is there so I can see whether Cisco DLSw will
interoperate with every other vendors implementation. I would like to
have some sort of base test suite that we run through. Further that
that test suite is the same with every vendor I test with. Then myself
and the other vendor are free to move on to other optional test that
we mutually agree to run. That give me a base line from which to
evaluate my progress.

Dave