Subject: AIW 10 Validation BOF minutes

From: "Erika Lewis (T/L 444-4475)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 14:59:40 EDT

Following are the minutes for the validation bof.  Thanks to everyone for
your participation in the discussions and to Candy Elder for scribing.
- Erika

AIW 10 Validation BOF Minutes
-----------------------------

The third Multivendor Connectivity Test, held in February, was
reviewed.  Participants and test scenarios were listed.  It was noted
that this test required a more controlled environment than past tests,
because an uncontrolled environment wreaks havoc for HPR scenarios.
Some problems found during the test were reviewed; it was decided to
refer a TG negotiation issue to the reference SIG.

The Experimental Network was discussed next.  DCL did an Experimental
Network trial.  Mike Evans and Matthew Finlayson of DCL said they
connected over their DLSw code running on OS/2 to one of their customers
with 6611 and aping'ed.  It was noted that security (firewalls) may be a
problem at some sites, including IBM RTP.  Jim Cobban expressed concern
that this configuration (over the internet) does not support HPR.

An alternative proposal from MCNC (Microelectronics Center of North
Carolina) was presented.  They could potentially provide lines between
RTP, London, Santa Clara, Boston, etc. (either by negotiating with
carriers or dedicated).  The Validation BOF would have to specify
how much bandwidth and how much time is required.  This could also be a
potential springboard for other uses, such as remote customer demos
at MCNC.  Jim Cobban said TR to X.25 service from Nortel was also
available;  you would only pay by usage, but it would have greater end to
end delay than dedicated links by MCNC.

Following there was a discussion over whether there is really any
interest in putting together an Experimental Network.  It was pointed
out that although DCL volunteered at the last 2 BOF meetings to
participate in a trial, no one called them.  Dave Billing said the
Experimental Network sounded interesting but cannot replace the value
of the connectathon.  Jim Cobban pointed out that the Experimental Network
is more like the real world for the next evolution of test.  Howard
Blevins also agreed that it could not replace the connectathon.  There
was a general consensus that this didn't replace the connectathon.
(Next connectathon contents will be discussed at the next AIW.)  Rodger
Erickson from Wall Data stated that the Experimental Network would
provide a mechanism for those who missed a connectathon.  There was
a consensus to continue work on the Experimental Network.

The next step was to decide how to proceed.  If we went with the
internet, we would have to get around firewalls.  We also needed to
decide whether an HPR solution was required.  Paul Wood asked where
DLSw was with HPR.  Jim Cobban said the current implementation couldn't
handle.  Chuck Brotman said we could make the suggestion to the DLSw RIG
that DLSw carry HPR.  Erika agreed if this is also a customer requirement.
Mike Evans said that even if DLSw supports HPR, the internet would not
provide a good medium.  John Murray said we could perhaps have more
than one connectivity test.  Jim Cobban said some vendors would still
have problems, for example, they cannot patch code offsite, and it
would help to have a staging for Connectivity.

Erika will ask John Streck from MCNC to give a formal proposal at the
next BOF meeting.  She also asked Nortel to prepare a proposal.  Steve
Berl said we should consider frame relay, isdn, etc.  Jim Cobban pointed
out we could even connect this into the Interop network.  Chuck Brotman
said dollars will affect our vote how often to do this and requested that
attendees provide some quotes also.  Erika said MCNC does need to know
some scenarios to make proposal, and it was decided to ask about once
a year for one week, once a month, and once a quarter.  Chuck asked AIW
members to follow up with requirements and/or other solutions and costs.

On other business, Dario Callia from Cisco asked if IBM has a close
relationship with any university.  Glen Shelton said IBM does some
things with NC State, but they're currently focused on ATM and aren't
currently that interested in APPN.