Conference azur::mcc

Don't forget that the SRM is an architectural document.  Not everything
that is specified in that document is in the current implementation. In
an ideal world the architecture leads the implementation. The release
notes are supposed to point out the differences between the
implementation and the architecture. 

...kjn

    
"The releasenotes are supposed to point out the differences between the
implementation and the architecture."

>> In a ideal world, I beleive ........
>> or do I spell badly ?
... FW


 POLYCENTER Network Manager 200
 Version V1.3
 Release Notes
 February 1993
								
TENERE_$ sea MCCBMS130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 unsupported
%SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched

TENERE_$ sea  MCCBMS130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 mcc_dsc_
%SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched

TENERE_$ sea  MCCBMS130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 "not supported"
     version of CMA is not supported.  Previous versions of CMA are
     not supported because of missing functionality and previously
     versions of CMA are not supported because of thread related




 POLYCENTER Network Manager 200
 Version V1.3
 Release Notes
 February 1993

TENERE_$ sea MCCdtk130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 unsupported
%SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched

TENERE_$ sea MCCdtk130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 mcc_dsc_
%SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched

TENERE_$ sea MCCdtk130_RELEASE_NOTES.TXT;1 "not supported"
     version of CMA is not supported.  Previous versions of CMA are
     not supported because of missing functionality and previously
     versions of CMA are not supported because of thread related

    
    Hello again,

    I will take the opportunity (and time by the way) of such
    questions/responses to do some remarks that I beleive
    may be of interest.
    First I would like to remind that we all are CUSTOMER FOCUSED, and this
    is our very first priority, including engineering.
    Then I can add some more details: I am supporting TeMIP product
    and customers. Because DECmcc is a major part of the overall solution,
    we come up with a lot of DECmcc questions. Some of them we can answer,
    some of them we cannot. But the very first priority is to keep the link
    alive between customers and DEC, whatever TeMIP or DECmcc.
    
    In such a context, a hidden part of my objective (and this is not
    listed in my job review) is to supply DECmcc
    responses to those clients for which DECmcc support is weak.
    Taking this risk, I am exposed to ask silly questions in notesfiles.
    But I volonteer to continue my work for and with customers and I
    believe it is a CORPORATE objective, not only a DECmcc/TeMIP matter.
    So, you might still have silly questions in the future...., even if I try
    to reduce them to the minimum.
    However, and because most of the time I've been actively supported by a
    lot of you overthere in the US, I must also say that my customers and
    I really appreciate your collaboration, thanks.
    
    Regards,
    Florence
    (TeMIP Support Project Manager).
    
Hard times must make people go in the same direction.

  
    For those who were interested in that topic, here is the response.
        
        mcc_dsc_<*> routines
	--------------------
           The following 4 string functions should be called using the
           published SRM names that include the required facility code.

                mcc_scopy_dxdx  ==>  mcc_dsc_scopy_dxdx
                mcc_scopy_r_dx  ==>  mcc_dsc_scopy_r_dx
                mcc_sfree1_dd   ==>  mcc_dsc_sfree1_dd
                mcc_sget1_dd    ==>  mcc_dsc_sget1_dd


	% nm mcc_exec.a | grep "T mcc_s"		
	00000ef0 T mcc_scopy_dxdx
	0000112c T mcc_scopy_r_dx
	000010e0 T mcc_sfree1_dd
	00001034 T mcc_sget1_dd
	......