From: Christopher Stetson, 102450,1126
To: Peter S. Cotsis, 74023,1420
Topic: PCI, IP, and angry users
Msg #115175, reply to #115126
Section: PowerPC [6]
Forum: MacWEEK
Date: Tue, Oct 3, 1995, 11:46:11 PM

Peter, 

following is a message from the Product Manager for Open Transport. I think it is the clearest message on OT and the PPP/Slip problem. After is a note on OT licensing which is _really_ cool (for me at least ;-).

____________________________________

Date: 2 Oct 1995 17:22:49 -0700
From: "Garry Hornbuckle" <garry_hornbuckle@powertalk.apple.com>
To: "semper.fi@abs.apple.com" <semper.fi@abs.apple.com>
Subject: PPP in MacOS
Message-ID: <n1399410305.35619@powertalk.apple.com>

All,

Just to follow up on comments and discussion regarding PPP in the MacOS. =
There is a long story of how we got to where we are with OT and 3rd party =
mdevs, but I will not drag you through all the gory details. Just the =
highlights:

1) the mdev API was hacked into MacTCP as an upgrade (afterthought) when =
the call came from customers for TCP/IP over token ring. Officially, the =
mdev API has never been documented or released. But somehow, somewhere, =
somebody did publish some documentation. 

2) The good news is that the mdev API made it possible for developers to =
create SLIP and later PPP modules for MacTCP.

3) The bad news is that the API is skanky and technically unsupported.

4) When we began planning OT, the plan called for a new generation of =
Apple Remote Access products that would be based on OT and PPP, and that =
would be available simultaneously with OT 1.0. On that basis (there would =
be a solution from Apple), the mdev API was not going to be supported in =
OT at all. We told developers this over two years ago.

5) Later, as it became clear that neither the ARA or OT schedules were =
going to meet original expectations, and that the two project schedules =
were diverging, we had to re-think mdev support. 

6) We made a "go" at supporting mdevs. For a lot of technial reasons, it =
turned out to be a very hard engineering task.

7) We got pushed on schedules to meet the PM 9500 intro, and based on =
their planned market targets of high-end graphics workstations, made a =
decision to defer known issues with mdev support for a later update. 

8) As soon as 1.0 was out the door, we put an intensive 'get well' plan =
into place on SLIP and PPP. We delivered three additional updates to OT =
in the next 58 days. While I'm sorry that it took three more updates, I =
hope at least that demonstrates our committment to working on bugs and =
getting releases out to customers are quickly as possible. 

9) The Apple Internet Connection Kit ships with PPP support. It has been =
tested with both MacTCP and Open Transport. 

10) We're still working the ARA/PPP plan, and will have a Power Mac =
native, OT native solution in the future.

You don't need to write me and tell me which of points 1-10 were =
bone-headed, ill-advised, or stupid. In retrospect, I can tell that all =
by myself ;-).

Apple is committed to TCP/IP and the Internet family of protocols. We =
will have a TCP/IP stack second to no other desktop; three pieces of good =
news to share with you:

1) Working with Interphase we saw OT/TCP running on a pair of 9500s move =
over 90 Mbps on their PCI ATM-155 cards (their first Mac product!). =
That's some serious bit pushing! And the drivers and OT were both still =
beta, with more tweaking to come before final release.

2) A customer (who will have to remain anonymous here) wrote to tell us =
that they had been benchmarking TCP/IP over 10 Mbps ethernet compairing =
desktop OS platforms. They were getting 2x-3x more performance from =
OT/TCP than from other implementations they tested, including Windows NT.

3) Last week, at Networld+InterOp, working with Mentat Inc. we =
demonstrated UP AND RUNNING on Open Transport a prototype implementation =
of IPv6 - next generation IP. We were able to run Fetch, Ping, and =
Netscape, and Web*Star - unmodified - on the IPv6 prototype, and we were =
able to interoperate with prototypes from DEC and HP! We won't be playing =
'catch-up' on this one.

Cheers,
Garry

___________________________________

Date: 3 Oct 1995 13:57:44 -0700
From: "Garry Hornbuckle" <garry_hornbuckle@powertalk.apple.com>
To: "Evan Coyne Maloney" <cluster1@unet.net>
Cc: "Subscribers to" <semper.fi@abs.apple.com>
Subject: Re(2): PPP in MacOS
Message-ID: <n1399392474.4806a@powertalk.apple.com>

>From: Evan Coyne Maloney, Tue, Oct 3, 1995 ------
>A few questions:

BTW, the answers to all of these questions are contained in the current =
version of the Open Transport Q&A document, posted for anonymous internet =
access from:

     ftp://seeding.apple.com/ess/public/opentransport/

Nevertheless.. here is a summary of the answers, for your reading =
convenience.

>1) Is Apple going to have its own PPP solution for OpenTransport?
YES.  As previously committed in a number of public forums (first at =
Mactivity '95 in San Jose last summer), Apple is developing a new version =
of Apple Remote Access products that are Power Mac native, OT-enhanced, =
and support both AppleTalk and TCP/IP over PPP. 

>If so:
>1a) When?
We have not publically disclosed a delivery date for these products.  We =
have said that they are based on OT 1.1, and that OT 1.1 will GM later =
this year.  You can make your own informed guesstimate from there.  The =
ARA Product Manager is working out his product announcement and =
communications strategy, and will have more information when that is a =
bit further along.

>1b) Will it ship with the operating system or is it going to follow the
>model that MacTCP followed prior to System 7.5.
We have committed that ARA/PPP capabilities will be merged into Open Trans=
port and into the MacOS over time.  We have not disclosed a timetable for =
that merger (kinda' hard to do before the timetable for the ARA/PPP =
product is itself announced).  We have also said that ARA/PPP =
capabilities will continue to be available in the model of the current =
ARA products. 

>2) Will OpenTransport be available for _all_ Macintoshes?
>If so:
Open Transport will be available for 68030 and 68040 Macs, and Power PC =
Macs with both NuBus and PCI bus support.

>2a) When?
This is OT 1.1, and it is currently scheduled for GM in late =
Novemeber/early December of this year.  We are seeding Open Transport =
"Inside Track" developers with beta versions now (apply by sending email =
to 'seedme@seeding.apple.com'). Customer beta trials are expected later =
this month.  Customer availability is around the end of this year.  =
However, quality is more important than schedule and if we need to slip =
some to do further testing, we will.

>If Not:
>2b) Why not?
There will not be a version of Open Transport for 68000 or 68020 Macs.  =
This is due to a combination of development tools, testing matrix, and =
performance issues. 

>3) What will the licensing look like for OT and PPP? Is it going to cost =
me
>$3500-a-year to act as Apple's software distribution arm like it does for=

>MacTCP, or can I distribute it for free?

We have worked out a developer license tied to the Mac OS SDK.  If you =
have a current subscription to the Mac OS SDK, and if you 'register' your =
application(s) in advance with Software Licensing by filling out and =
sending us a survey (basic description of your application, contact info, =
etc.), you will be eligible to ship OT runtime with your application(s) =
without further fees.  To qualify, you must have actually developed an =
application that uses the new OT APIs, i.e., this deal is for developers =
who have 'done their part' and adopted OT.

For Internet service providers, book publishers, etc. (who are not =
applications developers), there will be a separate per-unit fee-based =
agreement. 

There are other legal terms and conditions (having to do with end-user =
license terms, etc.), but the principal of 'no additional fees' for the =
developer deal has been established. Software Licensing does not have the =
final contract/info to mail out to you yet because I have the final draft =
in my hands this week for review and (hopefully) approval. I'm working on =
it. If you want to register to receive a copy of the final licensing info =
when available, you can send email to "ot.license@seeding.apple.com"

>I am somewhat annoyed by the fact that I originally asked what the OT
>licensing structure would look like during this list's first week of
>existence and still haven't gotten an answer despite bringing it up =
again
>and again and again. (That's right, the kind folks at software licensing
>don't know, because it hasn't gotten that far yet.)

And I am somewhat annoyed by the fact that you missed the Apple press =
release last week (from Networld+InterOp) announcing these licensing =
terms, and that you didn't check the OT Q&A document, also updated last =
week, now including this information. 

But I forgive you. ;-)