Subject: DLUR Architecture Change Proposals Now Available For Review

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 09:54:02 EST

Proposals to change the APPN DLUR Architecture Reference manual have
been placed on networking.raleigh.ibm.com for items 8385, 8393, and
8394.  These files can be found in directory /aiw/dlur:

     abs8385.txt
     arch8385d.psbin (also includes change pages for 8393 and 8394)
     abs8393.txt
     abs8394.txt

8385) Update DLUR BIND adaptive session pacing processing

      Product testing for a migration scenario from NCP BF to DLUR BF
      uncovered a discrepancy in the two BF's adaptive session pacing
      processing.  Since customers require a seamless transition in
      moving devices from an NCP BF to a DLUR BF, the DLUR BF will be
      updated to match the NCP BF's processing.

      In the APPN DLUR Architecture Reference, section 8.1.4 (BIND), the
      proposal is to change within the "adaptive session pacing
      processing" from:

       - set the ASP indicator to the same value as the REX stage pacing
         parameter (byte 4, bit 0) in the Assign LU Characteristics
         (X'30') control vector included in the GDS variable
         encapsulating the ACTLU (note that the supported/not supported
         settings are defined opposite to each other in the BIND and in
         the CV X'30');

      to:

       - if the BIND is unextended set the ASP indicator off;

       - if the BIND is extended set the ASP indicator to the same
         value as the REX stage pacing parameter (byte 4, bit 0) in the
         Assign LU Characteristics (X'30') control vector included in
         the GDS variable encapsulating the ACTLU (note that the
         supported/not supported settings are defined opposite to each
         other in the BIND and in the CV X'30');

8393) Update DLUR processing to unextend an extended BIND

      Jim Cobban of NORTEL discovered an omission in the DLUR
      architecture description of how to unextend an extended BIND.
      While the CVs were removed, the SLU name was incorrectly left in
      the RU.

      When NCP unextends an extended BIND, it determines the number
      of bytes to remove from the end of the non-CV portion of the BIND
      RU to make it unextended.  This number includes truncation of
      trailing zeroes and the SLU name (for non-negotiable BINDs).

      Therefore, the proposed solution is to update the architecture
      to state the DLUR processing for unextending an extended BIND
      involves:

        - removing all keyed control vectors
        - turning off the CVs included indicator
        - truncating trailing zeroes and the SLU name (for
          non-negotiable BINDs)
        - updating the new length of the BIND RU

8394) Update DLUR processing of CV X'0C' on +RSP(ACTLU)

      An omission was found in the DLUR architecture description of
      how DLUR processes the CV X'0C' on +RSP(ACTLU).  While the LU-LU
      session limit is set when a DLUR builds a CV X'0C', it is not set
      when the CV X'0C' already exists, and in neither case is the
      LU-LU session count properly set.

      The proposed solution is to update the DLUR architecture section
      on +RSP(ACTLU) processing with:

       1) update the CV X'0C' building processing to include setting

            LU-LU session count to 1 if there is an active LU-LU session
                                   0 otherwise
            <part of processing described in 2)>

            subarea node extended BIND support on
            <part of processing described in 3)>

       2) add a new section to include setting

            LU-LU session limit to 1 if the LU is not PLU-capable

            LU-LU session count to 1 if there is an active LU-LU session
                                   0 otherwise

       3) update the extended BIND indicator processing to include,
          after remembering the indicators' settings, setting

            peripheral node extended BIND support off
            subarea node extended BIND support on

I'm requesting approval of these items at the next AIW during the APPN
Reference SIG session.

There has been no discussion on the mail exploder since my April 30
e-mails concerning items 8334, 8343, and 8345, which were not approved
at the AIW10 APPN Reference SIG session.  There is, therefore, no
consensus as to how to update these proposals, and so I have not
requested that these items be included on the APPN Reference SIG agenda.

Ed Tremblay