Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!voder!berlioz.nsc.com!falcon.nsc.com!my
From: my@falcon.nsc.com (Michael Yip)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Info on FDDI SMT
Keywords: FDDI, SMT, X3T9.5
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.233143.722@berlioz.nsc.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 23:31:43 GMT
References: <97028@sgi.sgi.com> <1991Apr11.221054.25188@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@berlioz.nsc.com
Reply-To: my@falcon.nsc.com (Michael Yip)
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Lines: 69


In article vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
> From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
> Subject: Re: Info on FDDI SMT
> Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
> 
> In article 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
100% agree with you.  
But also depends on different thinking and what people expect from FDDI/SMT.  
Some people want more and some people want less and nothing get resolve.
Also depends on technical difficulties.  There are many ways to do the same
thing and no one can decide what is the best way ... so we ended up doing
something in the middle and things don't work ... or one or two companies
pushing for their implementation only.


> 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.
It is hard to say that they are wrong.  More is better, right?  Well, PMF
is not bad but do we really need all the extra? ... we don't know and 
that's why it's taking so long to agree upon.

>     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."
I am in the camp of saying "let SNMP or OSI manage things" ... but I don't
shout "Enough changes and Done."  I think that we should have a minimum
set of functions and extra (eg PMFs) should be just extra.  That way 
people can get on implementing FDDI now and add extra later without breaking
things.  For example, one don't have to support PMF change until the 
AUTH field is clearly defined.  The earlier that we get SMT and FDDI out the
door, the more popular FDDI will be ... or else we will miss the market
window and FDDI will be yet another vapor_net.

>     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."
> [....]
> Vernon Schryver,   vjs@sgi.com

Well, this is my own opinion so don't flame me for that.  ;)

-- Mike Yip
   my@berlioz.nsc.com

PS:  BY the way, what do people think about FDDI-2??