RE: description of recovery mechanisms

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Somesh,

I would appreciate if your suggestions could be more concrete.
In general terms I feel that I have enough details to proceed to
implementation.
If you feel otherwise please tell me what exactly you are missing.

As I said before - If you expect an SNA manual you will probably not get
one.

Regards,
Julo

"Somesh Gupta" <someshg@yahoo.com> on 09/03/2001 03:19:23

Please respond to someshg@yahoo.com

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, someshg@yahoo.com
cc:
Subject:  RE: description of recovery mechanisms




Julian,

My message is in no way an attack - above or below the
belt.

I am taking an implementor's view of things which by
necessity is detail focused, and likes to avoid
interoperability issues, testing uncertainty and
speculative processing among others.

It is a different view than others (you may or may not fall
in the category) who are more on the visionary side and
less detail focused (not that they cannot do as good
or better detail work).

I don't think the level of detail in the document
is enough at present.

Regards,
Somesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com [mailto:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:28 AM
> To: someshg@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: description of recovery mechanisms
>
>
>
>
> That was sort of under the belt. There will always be peple out there
that
> any amount of descrption is not enough.
>
> Julo
>
> "Somesh Gupta" <someshg@yahoo.com> on 08/03/2001 05:23:53
>
> Please respond to someshg@yahoo.com
>
> To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:
> Subject:  description of recovery mechanisms
>
>
>
>
> I hope David and Julian will excuse me for using the following
> sentences from the Orlando minutes.
>
> -----------  start of quote -------------------------------
>
> - There will be a significant connection recovery write-up,
>      including details, procedures and examples added to the draft.
>
> -----------  end of quote ---------------------------------
>
>
> As an engineer, I believe that we do need detailed and thorough
> description of the usage of all the recovery tools in the
> protocol. This ensures
>
> 1. Determination that there are no holes. Presence of "holes"
>    will lead to the mechanisms not being used (but implemented)
>
>    or determine that there are no holes which will lead
>    to testing nightmares.
>
> 2. Ensure interoperability among implementations
>
> I hope this does not sound like I am asking Julian to do
> my work for me. But it is better hashed out and debated
> in one place.
>
> If the rest of the working group does feel that the level of
> detail in the spec is enough and the rest is an "exercise
> for the reader", I will accept that.
>
> Thanks,
> Somesh
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com