Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Info on FDDI SMT
Keywords: FDDI, SMT, X3T9.5
Message-ID: <97028@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 03:13:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.221054.25188@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: guest@sgi.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 54

In article <1991Apr11.221054.25188@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whlehr@leland.Stanford.EDU (William H. Lehr) writes:
> Can anyone out there explain what is holding up X3T9.5's SMT standard for
> FDDI
> in  (relatively) simple terms? I'm trying to understand what the different
> philosophies are 
> re: what should be included vs. excluded from FDDI? 


Short answer:
    politics

Slightly longer:
    1.	Perhaps 20% of X3T9.5 are technical sophisticates who say "The more
	management, the better."  They say FDDI stations cannot be expected
	to have enough higher layer protocol stacks to do useful network
	management.  They are those pushing to make PMF's and so on
	mandatory.  They are those who have said in my hearing in X3T9.5
	plenary meetings "our customers do not care about security."  Most
	in this camp are SMT software vendors, FDDI consultants, or major
	network users.

    2.  Perhaps 35% of X3T9.5 are technical sophisticates who say "Let
	SNMP or an OSI protocol manage things."  Most system and hardware
	vendors are in this camp.  There are some major network users in
	this group.  This camp moans about the lack of security SMT for
	"sets."  For example, as of San Jose, there is a broadcast frame
	that says "turn yourself off" or "change your address to XXX," but
	no authentication nor authoratization other than the single field
	described in the standard as "to be determined."  This camp
	continually shouts "Enough changes and features!  Finish already."

    3.  Perhaps 30% of X3T9.5 are by their own account less sophisticated.
	When they hear "more management" from the first camp, they say "of
	course."

    The result has not been pretty.

About 2 years ago X3T9.5 formally agreed that everything would be "upward
compatible" with the standard of the era, before there were official
numbers on the versions.  The first official number was about SMT 6.0.  The
compatible version was informally known as SMT 5.3 (or was it 5.2?).  Some
of the recent conflicts revolve around the desire of the first camp above
to make more management frames mandatory, and the consequent conflicts with
the historical compatibility agreement.

The complete, private accounts of this history from any of the varied
perspectives cannot, as they say, be printed in a family newspaper.

Disclaimer: I work for a system vendor with a currently shipping FDDI
  product, and my sentiments are with the 2nd camp.  This only attempts to
  caricature SMT; nothing is intentionally implied about FDDI-2, etc.


Vernon Schryver,   vjs@sgi.com