Subject: Response to Comments by Peter Binninger

From: "John E. Fetvedt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 08:26:57 EDT

Peter,

     In response to your comments (attached):

     1. The current proposal supports both basic and mapped conversations
        on OSI TP. The default is mapped, and unfortunately, because the
        basic/mapped indication is not carried in the OSI TP protocol,
        if the applications want to use basic conversations they must
        both call CMSCT. The CPI-C layer inserts the LLIDs around the
        user data record with mapped conversations.

     2. This is a difficult problem. In the normal scenario CMSCST, and
        several other protocol stack dependent calls, must be called
        between CMINIT and CMALLC. However, in a truly dynamic
        environment, the protocol stack is not selected until CMALLC
        is called. Therefore we can't always give an error to CMSCST,
        but I also don't want to fail the CMALLC just because an OSI TP
        protocol stack happened to be used for the conversation. And,
        at the same time it probably isn't good to just ignore the
        information set by the CMSCST.

     I'd appreciate any additional comments anyone on the SIG has.

     Cheers.

John Fetvedt
CIW OSI TP SIG coordinator

----------------------------- Referenced Note ---------------------------

Received: from ibmstandards.cary.ibm.com by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with TCP; Wed, 21 Apr 93 04:54:19 EDT
Received: by ibmstandards.cary.ibm.com (5.61-AIX-1.2/1.0) from [192.35.17.2] with SMTP
	id AA168299 (for [email-masked], from
[email-masked]/[email-masked]); Wed, 21 Apr 93 04:46:22 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Received: from snimucgw.stm.mchp.sni.de by thoth.mchp.sni.de with SMTP id AA24440
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[email-masked]>); Wed, 21 Apr 1993 10:45:03
+0200
Received: from d018s100.stm.mchp.sni.de ([139.22.108.23]) by snimucgw.stm.mchp.sni.de with SMTP
id AA11266
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/ST.MCHP.SNI.DE for <ciw-sig-osi-tp%ibmstandards.cary.ibm.com@snimucgw>);
Wed, 21 Apr 1993 10:45:00 +0200
Received: from d018s100.stm.mchp.sni.de by d018s100.stm.mchp.sni.de
	  at Wed, 21 Apr 93 10:43:53  +0100 (5.52.1/SIE-1.1)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 10:43:53  +0100
Apparently-To: [email-masked]
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: <[email-masked]>

21.4.1993

My comments to c20-affi.ps:

1. It's a good idea to define a returncode cm_conv_type_not_supported.
   This returncode should be set at CMSCT (Basic Conversation) in
   OSI TP environment. Is this your opinion?

2. In addition we need one or some returncodes for functions which
   are supported only in one of the 2 protocol stacks LU6.2 and OSI TP,
   for example a returncode for CMSCST in OSI TP protocol stack.

Cheers

Peter Binninger