Subject: [Consensus on DLSw backward compatibility testing at Connectathon]

From: Dave Lowry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 17:13:46 PDT

Louise,

Can we talk about the connect-a-thon please. 

I disagree with you about us reaching consensus. We did not reach 
consensus on the  connect-a-thon. What I propose is this:

a) There is no mention of any backward compatibility testing anywhere
in the connect-a-thon test plan. 
Note : How could we be backward compatible when we are at version 1?

b) The final day be reserved for what shall be called "optional
testing". That term shall not be defined more than to say that the
optional testing is for additional testing beyond the agreed to test
plan. This optional testing would be for any vendor to test ANY 
non-standard features with other vendors that may have implemented 
similar features. 

Dave

P.S.  Please save the righteous indignation for the pulpit on Sunday :-).

>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:05:19 -0400
>X-Deleted-Errors-To: [email-masked]
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>Originator: [email-masked]
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Consensus on DLSw backward compatibility testing at Connectathon
>X-Comment:  DLSw interoperability
>
>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.
>
>Based on the input to date, including the recent suggestion of David M.
>(DEC), I am stating as chair that consensus appears to have been
>reached that:
>
>a)  Time and equipment for testing for interoperability between
>products that claim to be compliant with AIW DLSw Version 1.0 (RFC
>1795) and products that claim to be compliant with RFC 1434 will be
>available at the DLSw  connect-a-thon.
>
>b)  This v1.0-to-pre-v1.0 testing will be optional...repeat...optional.  No
>vendor will be required to provide such interoperability or backwards
>compatibility, as we agreed in RIG meetings.  No vendor, even one with
>a  1434 -based product, will be required or encouraged or cajoled or in
>any way pressured into such testing.  This includes any implication in
>this forum or any other about whether a company has done or should
>have done such testing.  Optional means optional, okay?
>
>c)  As suggested by David, this testing will be scheduled for late in the
>week, after all of the basic Version 1 to Version 1 interoperability
>testing.  No vendor who does not wish to do this testing should be
>delayed by this optional testing.
>
>d)  The test will be developed by the parties interested in such testing
>and no other vendors need to contribute to it.
>
>e)  This is an informal, private test!  No results of ANY testing at the
>connect-a-thon will be made public, as we agreed.  Any two vendors
>who wish to repeat  successful  tests afterward and publicly announce
>their interoperability are free to do so, of course.  Any vendor who
>violates this privacy agreement will be denounced in the press.
>
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Louise Herndon Wells