Conference azur::mcc

    Is this DNA4 or DNA5 nodes?
    
    We haven't had the opportunity to do much testing on Wave 2 and
    on VMS 5.5. We are just getting our wave 2 test environment in
    place. We know there are a host of potential gotchas on 5.5 and
    haven't had time to sort them out.
    
    wally

    We are running MCC on a phase IV system, and trying to look
    into a phase V system. Are you saying that MCC and DECNet VAX
    hasn't tested wave 2?
    
    Gullik
    

    
    
    Gullik,
    
    We've done a lot of interoperating with DECnet VAX wave 2 software.
    
    We've been testing as much as possible from a wave 2 system to ensure
    that we will be able to manage DNA4 and DNA5 from there: recent
    bugfixes mean that both will work from there, although we had some
    problems with BL9D that restricted our capabilities.  We are waiting
    for BL10 to help with some of those.
    
    We have also been testing regularly to Wave1, Wave2, and various DECnet 
    ULTRIX systems from DECnet 4 systems, and wave1 systems, and wave2
    systems.  Oh yeah, we also have been trying to make sure that we work
    successfully against the wide variety of DNS clerks/clients/servers
    and combinations that are currently being offered.
    
    For what it's worth, there is also the problem of catching a moving
    target.  Any change in the environment can create new problems, and
    there are a lot of interim baselevels out there in various places, with
    various problems from a whole lot of product that generally work very
    well together.
    
    A regular part of our baselevel testing is to ensure that we can look
    into a node.  Which baselevel of DECmcc you're running and which
    baselevel of DECnet VAX makes a difference in the results.  If you give
    us that information, and the specific error that you saw, we will make
    sure that we have addressed it for our update, if indeed we haven't
    addressed it already.
    
    The Iconic Map also has a tendency to stress the whole interface.  From
    version to version, little features skew, and that that disrupt the
    lookinto without severely impairing manageability using FCL.  Check
    that out too, and we'll potentially learn other things.  One is that
    most everything works very well, despite minor irritations.  The other
    is that a specific error on a specific FCL call gives us very specific
    error information which helps us a great deal.
    
    I didn't mean to go on so long, but this certainly shows you a flavor
    of what we're up against.  That a field test baselevel of our software
    doesn't work with a field test version of DECnet VAX that was released
    after us is something that is just going to happen.  We'll be happy to
    address it as quickly as we can, and any information you can provide us
    will be gratefully accepted.
    
    
    Thanks for your interest in DECmcc and thanks for any additional
    information you can provide about your specific problem.
    
    -Jim Carey
    

    Thank you for your reassuring response!
    
    I do understand the issues of keeping baslevels in step, I rest assured
    that you will resolve whatever issues there are before MCC 1.2 and
    DNVOSI are released to our customers.
    
    The original issue was just that we wanted to show our customers that
    OSI and MCC are alive and soon_to_be_shipped at the Swedish DECUS.
    We got a bit worried, but we made a resonable impression anyhow.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Gullik