Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:51:25 -0500 From: lidinsky@hep.net (Bill Lidinsky) To: PAT_THALER@HP-Roseville-om1.om.hp.com Subject: Re: 802.?q Cc: 802exec@hepnrc.hep.net, p8021@hepnrc.hep.net, k.doty@ieee.org Pat: My concern here is the confusion that will exist between - 802.1q (from 802.12 as a supplement to 802.1D) and - 802.1Q (802.1's VLAN work). Indeed such confusion has apparently already occurred. In the past the custom has been that the working group that is creating the supplement gives it one of their designations. This has been true for both 802.5 and 802.6 when supplements were created. This approach avoids to possibility of duplicate designators. The approach that 802.12 followed for your 802.1q supplement has the danger of duplicate designators. Moreover it's bad practice for 802.12 to assign an 802.1 designator. Anything with an 802.$ prefix designator should be completely under the control of Working Group $. Can you change your 802.1q to an 802.12x designation where x = any lower case letter you wish? 802.1Q is already well established in the minds, companies, and literature as being 802.1's VLAN effort. To change it would be a hardship. Bill PS. When we picked the upper-case/lower-case designators some time ago, I was opposed to it based upon just this sort of thing and also the continuing confusion that arises in the use of case. It has been my experience that industry and the great unwashed in general continually use case indiscriminately. There's no reason to believe that this will change. PPS (to all of 802): ------------------- We should really get rid of this rather bad scheme in favor of an approach that is less likely to create confusion. I favored then and I still favor a sequential letter assignment within each working group. Such a scheme would - eliminate confusion due to the unwashed's indiscriminate use of case, - minimize or eliminate future confusion, and - be backward compatible. (I trust that no WG has been so unwise as to designate two documents with the same letter designation, depending only upon case for differentiation.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From PAT_THALER@HP-Roseville-om1.om.hp.com Thu Jun 20 18:38 CDT 1996 > From: PAT_THALER@HP-Roseville-om1.om.hp.com > X-Openmail-Hops: 1 > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 16:36:54 -0700 > Subject: Re: 802.?q > To: lidinsky@hep.net > Cc: k.doty@hep.net, pat@hprnd.rose.hp.com > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 571 > > Item Subject: 802.?q > Yes, that is my understanding. > > Pat > > > ___________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________ > Subject: 802.?q > Author: Non-HP lidinsky (lidinsky@hep.net) at HP-Roseville,shargw2 > Date: 6/19/96 6:36 PM > > > Hi Pat: > > Kathy Doty told me that there is a PAR for 802.1q (note little "q") that > emerged from 802.12 which is to be incorporated into 802.1D. (I think > that I've got this right, but I lost my hand written notes from > Kathy.) Is this true? > > > Let me know if this is correct. > > Thanks, > > Bill