Subject: DLSw Connectathon Test Plan: 1434 inclusion issue

From: David McDonell 19-Jun-1995 1508 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 15:12:32 EDT

In his mail of 06 June [Subject: DLSw Connectathon Test Plan], Ivan Oakley 
([email-masked]) wrote:

> ............................................................I'd like to 
> request that everyone revisit Scott's DLSw Connectathon Test Plan and
> decide whether they feel that RFC 1795/RFC 1434 interoperability testing
> should be an integral part of the DLSw Connectathon, or whether it should
> be an optional activity that is unrelated to the RFC 1795 standard and
> therefore should not be included as a check off item in the Test Plan.
> 
> Please post your votes here:
> 
> [YES - to continue to list RFC 1795/RFC 1434
> interoperability as item #8 in the Test Plan]
> 
> or
> 
> [NO - to remove RFC 1795/RFC 1434 interoperability testing as item #8 in
> the Test Plan but to permit this (and other testing activities) to be
> optional for interested vendors].

And in her mail of 07 June [Subject: DLSw Connect-a-thon] Louise 
([email-masked]) wrote:

> However, since that was a preliminary discussion, I think it is
> appropriate, as Ivan suggested, to make a clearer decision now
> that we have a more formalized plan.  As Scott noted, I would
> prefer to term it as the group 'coming to consensus' rather
> than voting.  Also, I see three categories:  a) required 
> b) optional but part of organized process, and c) not official
> but allowed by individual participants.

With the acknowledged risk of helping to only propagate the "do we include
1434?" debate, Digital Equipment offers ("consensitizes ;-?") the following:
we agree that 1434 compatibility testing is beyond the primary goal of the 
October Connectathon (although our recollection of the "Interop" riglet 
discussion remains a bit vague around whether consensus was actually reached 
that it be positively excluded).  At the same time we're sincerely interested 
in 1434 compatibility as a secondary goal, for the simple reason that we 
anticipate mixed switch versions (and yes, even across vendors) in our 
customer base.

Our consenting opinion (as a recent *official* member of the AIW, it's a
genuine thrill to be able to legitimately express one) is therefore for the 
middle-ground category "b" offered by Louise: "optional but part of the 
organized process."

[Despite not having had the experience of earlier APPN Connectathon or Interop
multivendor interoperability experience (and at the risk of stating the 
obvious) it seems to us that we should refine the test specifics started by
Scott Barvick (thanks) with the singular goal of _maximizing the technical 
benefit to each vendor_ in a neutral, unbiased manner.  My understanding of 
the Connectathon process is that NO public statement is made about which 
vendor participated in which subtests nor about the specific test results.  If 
the "code of silence" is indeed maintained, then the only legitimate reason 
for not including 1434 compatibility testing would be wasting the time of
non-participating vendor(s).  Perhaps merely scheduling 1434 at the end of the 
week (and placing it in an "optional" appendix of the test plan) would be a 
reasonable compromise.]

(Fwiw, we *do* remember excluding SDLC datalink testing from the list during
the San Jose "Interop" riglet discussion, and Scott has included it as step
5 in the plan.  Funny how SDLC didn't generate the level of discussion that
1434 did ;-).  [And -- because you're surely wondering -- Digital continues
to feel that SDLC should be left in.])

David McD.

**************************************************************************
David McDonell                           email: [email-masked]
Networks Engineering, LKG1-3/A10                   telephone: 508 486 7126
Digital Equipment Corporation                            fax: 508 486 7438
550 King Street
Littleton, MA 01460
**************************************************************************

---

From: Wayne Clark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 16:34:32 EDT

DLSw Interop folks -

    I don't mean to be pedantic about this ... but I will be anyway :-).

    Let's be clear about what we mean when we say "RFC1434
    interoperability".  I seriously doubt if any vendors have a pure
    implementation of RFC 1434 any more.  Most folks have been plugging
    holes in the RFC 1434 specification since it was first published in
    March 1993.

    I would bet that what vendors mean is "interoperability with the
    pre-standard implementations of the IBM 6611".  And since most of
    those holes were plugged by IBM and given behind the scenes to
    their preferred list of partners, the "specification" is definitely
    not RFC 1434 and most likely not to be found in the public domain.

    The IETF would never have condoned this kind of activity.  This is
    very poor standards etiquette.

Regards,
-----------
Wayne Clark
cisco Systems, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC
[email-masked]
919.472.2958